TheHunter360

Which platform do you guys prefer and what advantages do you believe it has over its counterpart?

__________________

pantstofry

I prefer console. I don't know, something about playing on the thing i use to surf the web and type my papers doesn't appeal to me. Also, its refreshing using a peripheral other than a mouse or touchpad. Correct me if I'm wrong, but consoles are cheaper too... but i've got some games on my computer as well and they are just as enjoyable.

Also, I haven't TRULY spent time on the PC side, so this is basically my bias/opinion.

Voodoo

PC

__________________

My YouTube Channel

TheHunter360

care to elaborate?

__________________

Vasq

Eh. No offense, but I think this topic would be more successful if people played on both. Besides, it's like asking an Xbox guy if he likes PS3 or Xbox better. As for me, I prefer Console. I can't type very fast. Best is like 35 words per minute with at least 30 errors.

mattv2099

At the moment - console.

I've been using mouse and keyboard for FPS since '93 (wolfenstien then doom).

I didn't feel like upgrading my PC (AGP video LOL) which plays CS:S fine but nothing much newer. So I got an Xbox. Love it.

I believe the mouse and keyboard are optimal for FPS but I'm having plenty of fun with the console. It's taken a while to get my aim out of the shitter but I'm getting better. I'm still slower than most but do well enough.

By the end of the year I'll probably buy a new gaming PC but in the meantime I love the xbox 360.

This is the first FPS since goldeneye I've played on a console. And the reason I'm a knifing pathfinder is because it took me a long time to get good (or just OK compared to most people) at the xbox controller.

__________________
Black Ops:
Prestige: 2
Rank: 46
Kills: 7,897
K/D: 1.90

Naga

PC.

I prefer the control customisation that is pretty much standard for all PC games. I can use a gamepad, too, if I feel like it.

I could go ahead and say some games look or run better, as there is a bit of leeway when it comes to hardware specs. (Though this can cause problems)

Also, when the next generation of games comes out, you don't have to replace the system, though I guess it's a pretty good idea. Shame about the prices, though. Gaming PCs are... pricey. But the vast majority of online games are free to play online (lul XBox Live), they're general purpose (I could be playing Bad Company 2 one minute, watching a video the next, then chatting online to a friend, or working, or posting something on a forum), and I can easily stop annoying siblings from using it.

Really, though, the reasons I play on PC are because I can adjust exactly how I want a game to look, loads of mods for games (except for the biggest disappointment of 2009), massive control modification, TVs always seem to have less clearer images than computer monitors, and games can run/look better. Consoles feel so... restrictive.

__________________
CoD Advanced Knifing Tutorial:

Press button.

Icetyger

I prefer consoles, mainly because I can't play games using a mouse and keyboard. I just can't do it captain. I don't have the power!!

Also, I like the fact that consoles have set limitations with their hardware, so developers have to create games to those limitations. This means a console game will always work at it's optimal performance, straight out of the box. With PC games, developers can create games based on the next generation of hardware, that hasn't been released yet. So if you want to play the latest PC game with the best possible visual and audio performance, you'll have to upgrade to the latest components. This becomes an ongoing cost that I simply can't afford.

There is no doubt in my mind, that PC games have the potential to be vastly superior to console games in every way (graphics, sound, control, etc), but this superiority comes at an ever growing cost...

__________________
That's my 5 cents. Keep the change...

Dante

I prefer PC.

Having a gaming PC means that I can:

• Switch instantly from gaming to surfing to web without having to move.
• Play games such as Fallout 3 with the addition of countless mods to enhance my playing experience.
• Get the best of both worlds. Sure MW2 is great to play with a mouse and keyboard but Assassin's Creed 2 is a bit cumbersome. No matter, i'll just plug in my Xbox 360 controller and get a smooth experience.
• Watch TV and movies in HD even when my family is using the TV thanks to my high spec PC.
• Try before I buy - handy programs allow me to play a game for free to see if it's worth buying.
• Use voice chat whenever I want, and with a whole bunch of option to make in more convenient and useful.
• Have the knowledge that I personally assembled the machine i'm using.
• Tweak my playing experience using ingame menu with option far exceeding the amount on any console.
• Play games from any number of retro console and handhelds through the magic of emulators.
• Last but not least, reflect on all the reasons above and feel smug.

Oh and yes, I have played games on an Xbox, my brother has one, as well as a number of my friends. I have yet to play a PS3, but really, how different can they be?

__________________

Voodoo

I play MW2 on xbox but I generally prefer PC for gaming, Dante has outlined any points that I would make better than I could have said them so refer to that.

__________________

My YouTube Channel

Call Me Vanilla

Deffinetly console gaming, i used to play CS:S on PC and the most annoying thing was all the hackers, its much easier to hack on PC then console. Also with playing on a console everyones system has the same specs so nobody ever has the advantage of having a more powerful system or different mods.

If we were talking cod4 i would have to say PC, i want dedicated servers!!! also maybe it was just my experience but i found that xbox and PC have much different communities that follow them i wouldn't say either one is better but i found it easier to stay in contact with my xbox friends vs computer where sometimes people were signed into xfire sometimes they wouldn't bother.

__________________


(Call Me - Recruiter)
kdr 2.35
win/loss ratio 4.28
Game Battles 10-5 (Team Ladder)
Game Battles 1-0 (Doubles)
callussheepies.webs.com (In the works)

Yesterday upon the stair i met a man who wasn't there, i met that man again today i wish that man would go away.

OzballO

I've played both and I could really care less. i like liek console a little better cause most of my friends play 360, console is not as expensive, I like the controls better although you can use a contoller for pc? Anyway I've played both and had success with both but since I ain't all up in the hoppla with pc stuff console just makes it easier.

Dante

From what I hear on these forums the Xbox 360 is far more beleaguered by hackers than PC...just sayin'.

__________________

mattv2099

I haven't encountered any hax. That I know of. Never felt like I'm getting pwnt by hackors.

__________________
Black Ops:
Prestige: 2
Rank: 46
Kills: 7,897
K/D: 1.90

NinJa

I personally prefer consoles because I grew up with them. I also prefer them because the majority of my peers own them as well.

PC to me at least, is more of an all-round place where I can browse the web, use messengers to speak to my friends, an d just use it as a multi-media device. The PS3 takes care of the gaming, while PC does a myriad of other things for me.

__________________

Lul Suspended | Forum Rules | TB PX21 Review | Userbar Pack

Nibbles

I have played games primarily on DOS / Windows based PCs from about 1991 to 2005, and on the old 8 bit machines for about 6 years prior to that (Amstrad CPC6128 and MSX Spectravideo for anyone who cares).

I also have an Atari 2600 (still works and with sexy woodgrain panelling to boot!), a NES, SNES, Gamecube, PS1, PS2, PS3 and a Wii.

On the PC I have played multiplayer FPS games since Doom over serial cables and then via dial up BBSes who did something tricky with IPX back in the day IIRC. Then everything from Heretic to Hexen to Rise of the Triad to Duke3D, HL, CS, etc etc... and of course all the excellent games in-between that were not multiplayer FPS games.

But for me, the consoles win. I just dont have time for gaming with PCs anymore. Granted, gaming these days is a lot easier on PCs (oh how we miss you config.sys and autoexec.bat) and pretty much automated but keeping up to date with the hardware is crazy - if I have to consider things such as RAM speeds, GFX card longevity, motherboard brands, etc then, unless I have a real interest in those things (which I don't these days), then a console is a better suit.

Plus for me, I look at Windows XP all day at work, so I bought a Mac for home. Cant open it up and change the gfx card, but I do not need to. Last time I did that on my PC was in 2004 (upgrading a 2001 PC) and I needed to buy a new mobo to support the next gen gfx card, which was a mobo that had a different CPU socket so I needed a new CPU, and likewise, different RAM and a stronger PSU. I practically replaced the entire thing except the case and HDD anyway.

I use a PC with XP on for work (cos I have to) a console for gaming and a Mac for everything else.

IMO if you are going to get a PC for gaming you should do it properly, but that takes time and a fair amount of technical knowledge that will likely be out of date as soon as you need the next upgrade. Proper PC gaming is still for PC hobbyists. Show me a hardcore PC gamer and I'll show you someone who has a relatively deep knowledge of PC hardware.

I used to be that way inclined but these days, I just like to put a disc in a drive (meh, I would prefer a cartridge for nostalgic reasons though!!!) and let it fire up. The only system requirements I need for any game to run as intended is that it says PS3 on the box.

When it comes to PCs vs Consoles - no one is better than the other, they both have their merits but they just suit different needs. Pick the best tool for the job

However, if an average joe asked me what he should choose specifically for gaming, it would depend on what type of games he wanted to play (hardcore strategy games would probably push me towards PC but thats not really an average joe thing) but for the most part I would generally recommend a console.
Consoles are appliances built for games - it is as simple as it gets, does what it says on the tin and for what I want out of a games machine, that is where it shines and will always outdo PCs. Consoles sacrifice versatility (and thus complexity) to perform one task well and keep it simple.
It is as basic as playing a DVD in a DVD player which is built to play........ DVDs!

abc

PC is extremely bad and all the negative points are not exagerrated whatsoever.

Hacking - In the last 5 years I have seen FIVE (!!!) hackers on COD2, FOUR (!!!) on COD4 and a game-wrecking ZERO hackers on COD:WaW. I'm not going to lie, MW2 has had it's moments. For a period of about a week there was a hacker PER LOBBY. This was extremely annoying and fixed after about a week but don't get ahead of yourself just face the fact that no system is invunerable - COD4 UFO anyone?!?! I do not play much, but even so on MW2 I encounter a hacker a week. However I believe the amount of hackers on previous COD games (which used a different company for anti-cheat software) prooves that hacking can be successfully conquered to a satisfactory level.

Money - It's a choice between a graphics card and a Ferrari. NO. I am sat here using a perfectly capable gaming machine worth hundreds. It cost me £300 originally and I upgraded a small part every few months over a year and a bit. No upgrade has cost more than £120. Bottom line: it has never cost me more than £300 (much less than a PS3 at the time...) in one go and for the past 2 years i have enjoyed a system that can cope very well with all the latest games Oh and the cheapest PS3 cost £100 more than my computer at launch. consoles are simpler there is absolutely no doubt about that but computers don't have to be as expensive as people think as I have prooved simply by being a bit smart with my money. I'll also add that what with the upgrades and therefore spares I've been able to give my parents a big upgrade for no extra cost to anyone - a nice thing to do. You know something else? I've become more knowledgable about computers. I can solve my own problems from small ones to blue screens - useful in real life. The problem solving and usage skills will also help hugely in my future proffesional career, essential in the world we live in and the industry I aspire to. It's also worth mentioning games are 50% cheaper and there are no hidden/montly costs such as XBL or £200 to fix your console (when it's worth £300)

PC is out of date after 35 minutes - Seriously, JUST NO!!! The PS3's GPU (graphics proccessing unit - i.e. the most important bit in a gaming device) is an nVidia Geforce 7800. Now that was fantastic in... oh... 2006... Who is more out of date? The PS3 and 360 with it's 2005/2006 technology or the PC player whom the large majority have sub-2-year old GFX cards? Oh yes, that's right, the PS3 and 360 users are stuck in the past. And yes this does have a big advantage r.e. compatability but that's not what being afraid to buy something that's out-of-date is about. Equally, as I and hopefully others will do, I'm prepared to admit that all is not 100% rosy. To play games on highest settings which lets not forget is optional (and which look better than consoles because you can use 2010 technology, not 2006 tech) you do need a GFX card that is less than 3 years old - but if you think being being able to invent tech that is 50% better than last year every year is a bad thing... perhaps you should enter the 21st century.

But all my real life friends play on console? - Yes. Be prepared to only know 1 other person in real life who plays on PC. HOWEVER all this has done is increase the size and popularity of the PC clan scene. Oh and if it's competition you're after... well... "LOL @ consoles" is appropriate right now.



I hope I have been constructive in crucially admitting my own platform has flaws, but also doing my bit to dispell the in-accurate misconceptions surrounding the old "Gaming" PC. Whilst Dante did very well, I may expand on the advantages of PC gaming in another post now that I've looked at the disadvantages.

__________________
"I don't like new Linkin Park, I don't like old Linkin Park... I JUST LIKE LINKIN PARK"

COD owner - COD expansion pack owner - COD2 owner - COD2: BRO player - COD3 owner - COD4 owner - COD:WaW owner - COD: MW2 owner - COD: BO owner

This is getting repetitive.

Nibbles

How much in total over the past two years if you dont mind me asking?


You are comparing simplicity with expense? I am not sure that makes sense though if cost of materials is a point of comparison, you should also consider the cost of time in regards to research, shopping, fitting, finding the right driver, upgrading (ok, I am getting a little silly towards the end and some of these things are relatively trivial or even automated, but hopefully you get what I mean). None of these things are a requirement with a console yet they have been for you on your PC (and are a hidden cost in a way).. or perhaps they haven't but either way, a console owner need not worry about or spend time on such things. And time (for many) is far more valuable than these relatively small amounts of money spent on materials.


Whether hardware is out of date or not is relative to what you are trying to do with it. Some PC software takes advantage of the latest hardware because it is available to be used, thus you can quite easily become out of date because there is always something newer / faster / better.

Console users are stuck with what was in the box on day one, however they are not comparatively out of date with one another. And when you get games written specifically for certain consoles that rely upon their specific hardware capabilities (cell processor usage in Uncharted 2 on the PS3 for example) some jaw dropping stuff can be done. The limit is in the skill and knowledge of the developers and it is pretty damn amazing what can be done with old hardware over time (eg some of the later PS2 stuff is pretty incredible considering the age) and this impresses me far more than the latest, beefier hardware.

Bleeding edge tech and having the pertiest possible graphics will always be a PC thing but does it make that big a difference? Not enough for it to matter. Otherwise people would be dumping their consoles for PC games and that doesn't seem to be happening.

MoleMania

I like PC better mainly because of the mods and dedicated servers. Good thing I didn't buy MW2 for it!

Console gaming to me is more light hearted, fun play when you're just looking to chill with some mates.

PC is more serious for me though. Firstly, I play better on PC - the mouse is in another league to the analogue sticks IMO, and you usually get to customize the keyboard binds to your own needs. RTS games I think are better with a keyboard anyway. Secondly, I can usually arrange clan battles easier and join a server with some nicely customized rules if need be - the advantages of being able to jump between the internet and gaming instantaneously are immense.

However, the need to buy good hardware can be annoying, whereas a console you can just buy and you're set - none of that for PC! However, that is kinda countered by the fact that PC games are usually a lot cheaper. Wonder why I didn't buy MW2 for PC?

__________________

I Appreciate the Otter

abc

These are very very very safe (as in an over-estimate) estimates:

My expenditure on essential components: £600 absolute max
My personal expenditure on over-kill: £700?

"Pure essentials" is everything you need for a complete working system that copes with the latest games.

As you may have noticed sometimes I can be a bit enthusiastic and my computer often turns into a hobby for me so there I have a lot of "over kill." For example your PC will work fine with 1 (not 3) hard drive, without lights, without a £2.50 per gigabyte SSD, without a shiny new case, without building a second PC, without high-end cooling allowing overclocking, without surround sound speakers etc.

Due to my over kill, it would be unfair to take that as £1300 over 2 years = £650 per year for the rest of my life. I think it'd be more than fair to take it as £500 initial purchase + £50 a year upgrades in return for a very pleasing gaming PC capable of running the latest games very well.

I am not trying to say that a PC is cheaper than a console, it probably isn't. What I am trying to do is counter the myth that they are unaffordable. Whilst £599 for the 60GB at launch is an extreme, a fair average-price-over-last-few-years for a PS3 would be £350 odd? Two more CRUCIAL bits of info - don't forget my estimate is playing it very safe and plays on highest of highest settings and secondly everyone spends £400 on a computer anyway... put your £300+ console budget on top of your normal PC/laptop purchase and do the maths


Precisely not. I mean the simplicity of the expense. Both have game & peripherial expenses, but a console is a one off payment of a few hundred that will not be needed for the next 5 years (excluding XBL and money for repairs, but again money for repairs could apply to a computer) whereas to get the most out of a PC a few very select upgrades will be required during that 5 year period.


R.E. out of date hardware.

Yes, things DO move on in the PC world and that means upgrades whilst consoles do not need upgrades and since they are all the same there are no compatability issues. This is why consoles are such a success. There are a lot of arguments that they are far inferior to PC gaming, but consoles are much more accessible. Accessibility = a more successful product, not neccesserily a better quality product. I have bolded this because I think this really does define the console vs PC war and why consoles are exceptionally successful.

__________________
"I don't like new Linkin Park, I don't like old Linkin Park... I JUST LIKE LINKIN PARK"

COD owner - COD expansion pack owner - COD2 owner - COD2: BRO player - COD3 owner - COD4 owner - COD:WaW owner - COD: MW2 owner - COD: BO owner

This is getting repetitive.

Alphabuster187

If PC keyboard and mouse are so much better, why do some PCers say us console people have it much easier with controllers with "aim assist", but yet you are struggling with a controller? Just saying!

PC = Too expensive, initial gaming PC buy, plus constant upgrades. I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to PCs, just the very basics.

Consoles = Plug and play, replace every 8-10 years, PS3 free online(vs xbox), no maintenance.

__________________

Prestige: 10 / Rank: 70 / Kills: 97,285 / KDR: 2.68

Nibbles

Ah fair call, I didn't realise that people still had that impression. But even so, if the purchase is just for games, why not just get a console?

Cant argue with the second bit, though I would like to see some arguments from anyone as to how consoles are inferior to PC gaming. From what I can tell, it is very much a subjective thing until, perhaps, we get to the specifics.. which would also be interesting to see.

Dante

Not going to go into a lot of detail as I don't have the time but i'll list a few that come to mind.

First and foremost has got to be mods, I mean one of the most popular PC games out there, Counter Strike, started out as a mod for Half Life. Mods can add hours of gameplay which makes PC games, which are already cheaper, have even better value.

Also dedicated servers, I must admit i'm no expert of dedicated severs in the console realm but general impressions tell me that they're far more prevalent in PC circles to console circles. The number one annoyance when it comes to online gaming has to be lag. Dedicated servers cut down on lag giving a better playing experience.

__________________

oneinchwunda

• Graphics, as abc explained. (Audio quality also, but can depend on the whether the PC has a sound card)
• Limited functionality of the gamepad, i.e. no lean in COD games.
• Joysticks. Less precise than a mouse for FPS, RTS etc.
• No dedi servers.
• No mods. They can seriously increase longevity of games.

Did you not read the thread?

I myself own both a gaming PC (by no means top of the range) and a PS3. Ever since I got my PC, my PS3's usage has decreased rapidly. I find that playing COD4 now on the PC instead of the PS3 is much better, becasue of the above.

__________________

abc

For valid reasons based on fact that are actually followed by an EXPLANATION not just "PC controls are better" then read on.

Reasons why PC is the superior platform (we've estabilished the reasons why it might not be the best platform are it's cost and knowledge needed to operate and maintain a gaming PC at an affordable price)



Graphics

• If vaguely current, your GFX card can support newer technology and software. This newer software contains more options and more complicated technologies for programmers to use when building games. This results in higher details, things like lighting effects and water benefit hugely from this newer tech (console are stuck on "version 9" if you like. All GFX cards since 2007 support "version 10" which is a substantial improvement)
• Better than HD. PC gaming simply "LMFAOs" at the word "HD." A 37" 1080p HD TV works out as 54 pixels per inch. My cheapy 19" 900p monitor works out at 90 pixels per inch. Area of a square = "length of a side" squared, yes? so squaring the 1.8 times higher definition gives you a total well over THREE TIMES HIGHER DEFINITION. You just can not argue with that one...
• Hilariously-better-than-HD. It gets better, if you spend a bit of money on your monitor, say a 1600p one (still a third of the price of your TV) then you get about 115 pixels per inch. Square 2 and a bit and you get well over FOUR TIMES HIGHER DEFINITION.

Conclusion
- More detailed and more realistic textures and effects to begin with
- Over three times higher definition


Interface

How you play the amazingly detailed game:

• Mouse - Logic tells you (only if you know the difference between "analogue" and "digital" though) that a mouse is far superior to an "analogue stick" for precision. This is particularly handy when playing an FPS, aiming a gun at a dot in the distance.
• Keyboard - As with anything, you have to get used to it. Once you get used to it however, you'll find it has far more keys. This means you can fully customise your controls (none of this "control setup 1, 2, 3 or 4") I mean properly make any button do any ingame command to suit you. THE REAL BENEFIT however is that you have keys spare. You can then assign these keys to extra commands. For example I use the scrollwheel to perform an automated "reload add cancel." I have keys to adjust brightness in game (say for particularly dark or bright maps) I also have keys to adjust sensitivity on the fly for when i swap between a sniping class and a run n gun. The list goes on.
• Game Pad - Not convinced? Fine, use a game pad. the freedom of choice and personalisation of your game.

Online

Q) A dedicated server has an internet connection of 100 Mb/s. A very expensive home internet connection (IWnet and consoles) in an ideal location right next to a telephone exchange has a speed of 20 Mb/s. Which provides the users with a better ping?
A) Dedicated server

• Better pings result in closer groupings meaning LESS people appear to "LAG." This means GAMES RELY MORE ON SKILL, NOT WHETHER YOU'VE GOT THE BEST CONNECTION.
• Using "business grade" 100 Mb/s internet connections also means LESS INTERUPTION. I.e. less "lobby disconnected"
• Dedicated servers run your game all day every day. This means no annoying "host migration" or host has left the lobby etc
• Faster connection means you can join games much faster and crucially the SERVERS ALWAYS EXIST. This means you can ALWAYS FIND A GAME and you will ALWAYS GET A LOW PING WHATEVER TIME OF DAY and WHATEVER WEIRD GAMETYPE you like to play.
• These high performance dedicated servers also mean 64 PLAYER WITH NO LAG easy peasy lemon squeezy. Sure, 64 is too hectic but 20 - 32 players on COD4 was perfect. IWnet/Console/MW2's 6-a-side or 9-a-side-but-with-more-lag is a tad... boring sometimes.

There is no denying that all of this leads to a better service.


But what about the billions of hackers?

It IS easier to write a hacking program for PC. Punkbuster may have got slammed at the time, but IW prooved with MW2 that it really is very very good at removing cheaters...

But what if they get past that program? Administrators. Every server (i.e. every "lobby" or "game" to you console folk) has real human beings who have the power to permanently ban any cheaters.

In the spirit of debates you should cover all angles. Yes, there is the very occasional 13 year old with banning powers who will ban you if you're better than him on his own server but these idiots really are FEW and FAR BETWEEN. And anyway, an idiot bans you from a server? You've got 15,000 more to choose from...


Mods

• FREE MAPS.
• FREE WEAPONS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS.
• FREE GAME TYPES.
• REMOVAL OF ANYTHING BAD (noobtubes, martydom or overpowered weapons for example)
• ADDITIONS OF EVERYTHING GOOD (Two attachments on one gun, bling? Ha. I've had the options of using two attachments on one gun on COD4 since about 4 months after release)
• NEW GAME (COD4 had some great zombie mods. COD:WaW had a frankly astonishing COD: Vietnam mod with all new maps, weapons and player skins)
• PRO MOD / PAM Think the game has too many distractions or is full of noobs? play a much more competitive version of the game where the only factor in success is skill.

Like it how it is? That is absolutely fine, but the option is always there...


Competition and Clans

The competition scene on PC, because it is more about skill (because connections matter less, all distractions e.g. perks can be removed and because you can actually aim precisely yourself without needing aim assist) is a lot better for everyone and therefore has grown into a very very estabalished industry. Competitice scene is simply bigger and better in every way on PC.

Clans. Ah, clans. These dedicated servers allow you to do whatever you want. Most clans have a public server great for playing with friends etc, but then, when you want to do something serious you have a competition or private server.

This means you ALWAYS get a perfect connection when you're trying to scrim or just hold a training & tactics session with fellow members.


Conclusion

As you my have noticed, PC gaming is all about doing everything bigger and better. But that's not my favourite thing. MY favourite thing about PC gaming is the massive CHOICE.


Vaguely near release a console is £400. Everyone has a minimum £400 PC anyway.

Why not just lump that together and you not only benefit from vastly superior gaming but you also have a much better PC for when you need to do work or edit videos etc.


It is for every single one of the above reasons and probably any others mentioned in this thread which makes PC gaming a BETTER platform.

And because I have worked out a way to make it affordable I choose to play on the BETTER platform.

And ON BALANCE that platform, as estabilished... is the PC.

---

In an ideal world you'd own a 360 and PS3 for casual gaming, a PC for real gaming and a Wii for dinner parties.

---

__________________
"I don't like new Linkin Park, I don't like old Linkin Park... I JUST LIKE LINKIN PARK"

COD owner - COD expansion pack owner - COD2 owner - COD2: BRO player - COD3 owner - COD4 owner - COD:WaW owner - COD: MW2 owner - COD: BO owner

This is getting repetitive.