Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Today’s MW2 Mass Sigh: 18 Max Multiplayer

By Kieron Gillen on November 5th, 2009 at 12:28 pm.

5 whole players here. Man!

You know the scene in the Hobbit where they arrive at Beorn’s house? Rather than the whole mass of ‘em going in at once, they just send a couple in first, and then gradually reveal exactly how many dwarves are going to be scoffing his honeycakes. The idea being, that he’d tell them to sling their hook if they all marched in at once. Since the number of how many smelly, bearded bastards are going to be staying in his gaff creeps up on him, he rolls with it. I’m beginning to suspect Infinity Ward’s Modern Warfare PC PR tactic is inspired by that. I’m also beginning to hope that the PC Beorn turns into a bear and eats them. Yes, it’s been confirmed that the PC Multiplayer will be capped at 9v9. Perhaps predictable with the removal of dedicated servers, but yet more dwarves in our house. In brighter news, Zombiecow are trying to ease the wait for the faithful with a 50% discount off their Time, Gentlemen Please until it comes out. Go gets.

Oh – fancy seeing the launch trailer? Here you go:

__________________

« | »

, , , .

250 Comments »

  1. 05/11/2009 at 12:34 Aldehyde says:

    Dot, dot, dot.

  2. 05/11/2009 at 12:36 TotalBiscuit says:

    Paraphrase from the recent Infinity Ward developer chat.

    “The PC version will come with additional features such as mouse control and graphics options”.

    There are no words…

  3. 05/11/2009 at 12:36 Anon says:

    Lovely game design decisions they’ve taken for multiplayer.

  4. 05/11/2009 at 12:37 James G says:

    Hehe, sneaky tactics Zombiecow.

    That said, I’m currently itching for Dragon Age at the moment, rather than MW2, which has no appeal for me. (Even if it did have dedicated super servers with maximum six billion players on any one server at a time.) Sadly I have alrea

    • 05/11/2009 at 12:39 James G says:

      … pressed reply mid sentence it would appear. I’m not sure how I managed that.

      As I was saying, already played TGP, but fortunately have torchlight to occupy my time instead. (Although I really should crank up the difficulty. People weren’t posturing when they said normal was a bit easy.)

  5. 05/11/2009 at 12:38 Gremmi says:

    I AM OUTRAGED AT THIS

    ANYTHING LESS THAN TEN PLAYERS PER SIDE AND THE ENTIRE GAME IS RUINED

    RARGH RARGH RARGH

    • 05/11/2009 at 12:40 TotalBiscuit says:

      Yes let’s strawman the issue by pretending that it’s the hyperbole of angry internet men.

    • 05/11/2009 at 12:47 Gremmi says:

      It was a pre-emptive response. Virtually everywhere I’ve seen this discussed has had posts similar to mine, albeit deathly serious. Someone honestly claimed that anything under 32 players per side isn’t worth playing.

    • 05/11/2009 at 12:57 Alexander Norris says:

      It’s the hyperbole of angry Internet men. There is nothing wrong with balancing a game around small playercounts. You may not like the low player count, but playing 50-man FFA games in CoD4 more or less made the game pointless, and most of the gametypes were designed for small-ish playercounts (S&D doesn’t work with more than 12 people, Sabotage ends up being a massively boring infinite back-and-forth with anything above 16, etc. – about the only thing that plays well above 18 players is Dom and in any case, all the competitive gaming tends to be 5v5 or 6v6).

      There are far, far more important things to get angry about when it comes to Modern Warfare 2. No choosing map or gametype (it’s chosen by IW in the form of playlists), no console (so no setting tweaking at all beyond the options), LAN play requires you to be connected to IWnet (and Steam even if in offline mode) at all times (okay, Blizzard is the original offender here), the conveniently-forgotten fact that matchmaking hosting only works with upload speeds higher than can be found in most of Europe (oh man! 100ms ping is totally awesomely good!) or the fact that you can’t kick or ban people from public matches (which are the only place you can get XP, incidentally) and can only play private matches with the people on your friends list. Take your pick; I’m sure I’ve forgotten a few.

      Or people could just continue to whine about the game being designed for small playercounts and the fact that you can’t lean anymore. You want to get angry? Get angry about something that matters.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:51 TotalBiscuit says:

      It’s a strawman. This single-issue rage does not exist. There is a laundry list of issues a mile long with MW2 that all culminate into the anger being expressed by PC Gamers. Do not try and dumb down the issue as IW dumbs down their game, when in reality the commentators on this site are well informed as to MW2′s various faults and are angry because the entire thing is worth getting angry about as a whole.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:57 Gutter says:

      @TotalBiscuit : It’s worth getting disappointed about. Angry? Not so much.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:25 Maniac11919 says:

      In the old days, if the milkman intentionally poisons all the milk people buy in the store, we’d have a good ol’ fashioned hanging. IW/Activision should be hanged for poisoning the milk.

      Pitchforks and torches, I say! Who’s with me? :P

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:36 TotalBiscuit says:

      @Gutter Yes, angry. I wasn’t interested in MW2 to begin with, I do not care for MW’s pseudo-realistic clown-car-shootathon. What should make you angry is how Activision is going out of it’s way to perpetuate the self-fulfilling prophecy of misguided publishers that the PC is dying as a gaming platform and is not worthy of proper support. It should anger you that such a large and influential publisher is doing things which could very well have future knock-on effects on your enjoyment as a PC gamer. Yes, it’s worth getting angry over.

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:36 El_MUERkO says:

      gremmi and biscuit sitting in a tree

      M
      W
      2
      I
      N
      G

    • 05/11/2009 at 17:13 monkeybreadman says:

      I could almost forgive most of those things if i thought multiplayer was going to work, but it isn’t so everything else while being a step backwards is irrelevant

  6. 05/11/2009 at 12:39 Dracko says:

    It’s all about the single-player anyway.

    Oh, and there’s a launch trailer out.

  7. 05/11/2009 at 12:41 TotalBiscuit says:

    This handy chart should tell you all you need to know – http://i33.tinypic.com/2mgqzw3.png

    • 05/11/2009 at 12:45 Dracko says:

      “Lean”

    • 05/11/2009 at 12:55 Rich says:

      No leaning? So I find myself fighting in a corridor with only small pillars for cover, I try to press myself against the wall as I’ve always done in this series and nothing. Great. So everywhere will be full of conveniently placed boxes then. Or perhaps I’ll only be able to take cover and pop out to fire where it says I can, Gears style.

      Also, no free demo? I’m unlikely to be buying this without a single player demo to test my system on.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:03 Dracko says:

      Leaning was always a ridiculous function in any FPS.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:07 Rich says:

      You’re kidding right? Do you like fighting from cover, or do you prefer to bunny hop?

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:16 Dracko says:

      Fighting from cover is always the way. Don’t see why you’d bend your spine quarter-way in a predictable pattern to do so, though.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:34 Gap Gen says:

      The lack of a demo is interesting. The demo has always been the one thing that’s tipped me over the edge of buying all of the CoD games that came out on PC. I suppose the emphasis is that they no longer consider the PC to be their target market – if indeed the game is based on CoD4′s code, including the things they got rid of for the sequel would be trivial, so they’re simply saying that they no longer consider the PC to be a separate platform to the consoles.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:38 Abhishek says:

      So, they both have LAN play but MW2 is still red for worse?

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:50 Zaphid says:

      It’s red because you still have to be connected to IW.net and/or steam to play it.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:37 TotalBiscuit says:

      And supports less players so is naturally not as good for larger LAN parties.

  8. 05/11/2009 at 12:46 Satellite says:

    IW really dropped the ball on this one …

    A note to other developers and publishers – this is how you go from praised developer to an outcast. Just shoot yourself in the foot … Perhaps IW and Epic should compare notes once all is said and done.

    I wouldn’t normally side with guys that have proclaimed the death of PC gaming, but I just read news that Blizzard is adopting microtransactions … not that I play WOW, but I fear for their in-development games. IW and Blizzard pulling moves most PC gamers would not have expected.

    I am just going to cry in a corner now.

    • 05/11/2009 at 12:48 Doug F says:

      Satellite: It’s hard for me to not blame the company that owns both IW and Blizzard for this stuff.

      Thanks, Bobby.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:01 Dracko says:

      Still think the Blizzard move of releasing three different version of StarCraft 2 like it’s Pokémon is incredibly hilarious and awful.

      Still, apart from the marketing, I doubt Activision had that much involvement in the multiplayer development process. I’m sure those shortcomings for the PC edition are squarely IW’s fault.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:09 JKjoker says:

      Not just WOW, micro transactions are hardcoded into bnet2, so starcraft 2 and most likely diablo 3 will be deep fried in them

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:33 Psychopomp says:

      Dawn of War had a single campaign, and all the races available in multiplayer. Over the years, they released some expansion packs, that added further campaigns, and whatnot. Where was the anger there?

      The outrage over SCII being spread across three games is utterly silly. It’s been stated that each campaign will be the length of SC as a whole, and that multiplayer will have all the races available from the outset.

      What is the big friggin’ deal?

    • 06/11/2009 at 00:43 JKjoker says:

      im not talking about the 3 slices of the game (those wont be microtransactions) im talking about their plan to charge for user made maps, supposedly users can choose to release them for free but i doubt that will happen often

      i dont know about other players but for me i got 70% of my warcraft3′s value playing free user maps and thats probably gone for sc2

  9. 05/11/2009 at 12:47 Doug F says:

    Does anyone know what the max number of players on the console version is going to be?

  10. 05/11/2009 at 12:51 Dan (WR) says:

    Eighteen player caps
    Angry tank is so angry
    Load the shells of rage!

    I am actually genuinely angry, and it’s as much at IW’s dissembling and blather as it is about their design choices. Rather than addressing the PC market as grown ups they’ve chosen to dodge the issue with all the ill-grace of a bad politician.

    I also think it’s highlighting that the creation of the concept of the ‘Angry Internet Man’ means that people can dismiss genuine concerns by painting the issue as simply down to the meaningless rants of faceless raging loons.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:06 Alexander Norris says:

      Getting up in arms about things is no longer cool, don’t you know? I can’t wait until net neutrality is genuinely threatened so everyone can dismiss the few people with a political conscience as “FAGS LOL” and “UR A PUSSY”

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:20 lumpi says:

      Being against something is totally gay. You aren’t attracted to people of the same sex, are you? Because that would mean (if you are not bisexual) that I just did imply that you aren’t even interested in flirting with the girl I have a crush on. By that I make it clear to her that you aren’t worth her attention and have a better chance at seducing her and eventually getting laid. Also your obvious display of effeminate tendencies makes me feel uncomfortable of my own sexuality, so I have to speak louder and douchier to confirm my heterosexuality (the only kind of sexuality accepted in our society) to my peers and own subconsciousness. I also decided to accuse anyone not agreeing with me (or being concerned about something I don’t give a fuck about) of being gay as well, since the aforementioned reasons make this the most radical swear word I can think of.

  11. 05/11/2009 at 12:51 Smee says:

    It’s implied in this developer chat that they’ve removed the developer console, too. I’d like some confirmation on this before I flip out.

    http://www.tek-9.org/news/mw2_developer_chat_reveals_more_bad_news-2115.html

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:10 Real Horrorshow says:

      Wait…no demo recording? and no lean?

      This is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Dude…there are literally no words. I can curse and say I’ll never buy another IW game again but I’ve done that already, and that was just over the axing of dedicated servers and the $60. This is the most rage I’ve ever felt in all my years as a gamer. I am completely stunned how thoughtless, inconsiderate, and stupid they are about the decisions they’ve made regarding MW2 on PC and enraged by how dismissive, dodgy, and knowingly untrue the reasons they’ve given us for these decisions.

      I’ve been playing IW games HARDCORE since Call of Duty 1 came out. I have over 1,500 hours logged in Xfire for CoD1 and UO ( and I didn’t start using xfire until way after I got CoD1), I played CoD2 and CoD4 extremely hardcore as well. I was in a clan during all of it, I played TWL matches, admin’d a server, etc. all of it. I even made my own frag videos (search Graphic36 on youtube if you’re curious…a couple are actually very popular). Basically up until I got burned out on CoD4, CoD multiplayer was my everything when it came to video games. I lived it for years and years.

      This is why I can’t express how enraged I am at IW. They don’t give a crap about all the people like me who put their kids through college and bought them their Lincoln Town Cars. WE. MADE. THEM. I think I hate IW. Like actually hate. Hate them like I hate republicans.

      Just……ugh. Damn it…

  12. 05/11/2009 at 12:54 Real Horrorshow says:

    Bad Company 2 it is.

    • 05/11/2009 at 12:58 TotalBiscuit says:

      Was there ever any doubt? Battlefield has always been the better game. I suppose if you really really only wanted infantry combat you could go for CoD4 but where’s the fun in that when I can drive a tank through a building?

  13. 05/11/2009 at 12:55 Andy says:

    Some kind of public server browser options will be modded into the game so fast it’ll make IW’s heads spin so fast they could be hooked up to generators and supply the earth with power for the next generation.
    The more they bugger up with PC multiplayer, the faster the community will fix it.
    Never fear.
    That said, they’ll probably never release an sdk so it’ll take some people who seriously know what they’re doing.

  14. 05/11/2009 at 12:57 Lobotomist says:

    There is only one thing to be said about this:

    LOL

  15. 05/11/2009 at 13:03 Fede says:

    18 is a weird number, I wonder why exactly 18

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:00 meeper says:

      The max is the same on all platforms which suggests IW ran some tests and determined that the maximum number of players that the lowest powered system host could support was 17 plus itself (assuming PS3 or 360 was the limiting factor here). I doubt that the number had anything at all to do with play balancing.

  16. 05/11/2009 at 13:04 derFeef says:

    They really try hard to make the PC audience to not like this game, dont they?

  17. 05/11/2009 at 13:06 FupDuk says:

    Soundtrack to launch trailer makes me retch. Especially the bit at the end when it syncs with the release date.

  18. 05/11/2009 at 13:07 dsmart says:

    The more I read about the gimping of this game, the more amazed I am that they’re actually gimping the game, yet charging more. Of course I’m certain that the gameplay experience will match the hype, but still this makes no sense to me, neither as gamer or a game developer.

    Oh well – to each his own I guess.

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:57 rocketman71 says:

      Oh, god, even Derek is on our side. Don’t you see what you’re doing, IW?

      [fucking up big, just in case you don't know]

  19. 05/11/2009 at 13:07 lumpi says:

    I didn’t even click the launch trailer. That is all.

  20. 05/11/2009 at 13:07 Duckmeister says:

    While I disagree with TotalBiscuit that “battlefield has always been the better game” (you can’t even compare the two, yes they are both shooters, but everything else about them is quite different), I am most certainly not buying this game and going with Bad Company 2.

    COD4 was and is one of the best FPS games I’ve ever played, and before I couldn’t wait for MW2. At first, I thought “maybe no dedicated servers isn’t all that bad, it’s not really affecting me, I’m not in a clan or anything” and then I read Infinity Ward’s response to the petition. I am most certainly not subsidizing this horrible behavior.

    I sure hope that whatever money they lose from pirating is dwarfed by the amount they lost from those who decided to take their money elsewhere.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:18 Duckmeister says:

      Holy crap, just read that “developer chat”, and now I will never be buying anything from IW again.

      This is probably the first time I have ever sat there in disbelief at what I just read on a computer:

      Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?
      Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings.

      Plus, I HATE VAC! That announcement (that IWNet would have VAC) turned me off to the game way more than “no dedicated servers”. Not that I’m a hacker, but there have been quite a few innocent people who’ve gotten banned by VAC, and Valve’s policies on the subject are some of the worst I’ve ever read. One of the main reason’s I’m against Steam.

  21. 05/11/2009 at 13:10 Godl1keStev3 says:

    I dunno whats funnier, the fanboys defending this idiotic game, or the fact that I dont care one bit about the supposed “Game of the Year”. I still play CoD 4 regularly, but I have yet to see ANYTHING that makes me want MW2.

    Butchering the PC version to fall in line with the consoles is akin to electing Elmo as prime minister, purely so he can “relate” to the general public. Its a very silly strategy, and I wont be buying it.

    Off to buy Dragons Age, enjoy your guns.

  22. 05/11/2009 at 13:10 EBass says:

    I personally never liked playing more than 10 a side max anyway and the game was best balanced 6v6 in Clan Matches and maybe 8v8-10v10 in pubs.

    But thats not the point, the point is a lot of people DO like 32 each side and theres no reason to stop their fun. (Or at least there wouldn’t be if it had dedicated servers, client run servers would be horribly in 32v32, well they’d be horrible 6v6 but 32v32 would be literally unplayable.)

    IW and Activision goes on my blacklist.

  23. 05/11/2009 at 13:11 EBass says:

    Gotta say thats a good trailer though…….

  24. 05/11/2009 at 13:11 no says:

    It’s stupid that games like this are capped at such low numbers in nearly 2010 when we had 64 player servers with BF2 about five years ago. HOWEVER, it can be damn hard to find a server for COD4 that isn’t a 48 player server.. which is complete shit on a map made for no more than 20 players on the console. It turns it into spawn-die-spawn-die-spawn-die and you never even get to take two steps from your spawn before you’re dead. Turned me off of the PC version of COD4 completely and I never went back.

  25. 05/11/2009 at 13:15 FupDuk says:

    Hope coop mode is good/works

  26. 05/11/2009 at 13:16 Glove says:

    Is it just me, or does that launch trailer seem somewhat juvenile?

  27. 05/11/2009 at 13:24 Senethro says:

    It is perhaps worth pointing out that only a single game mode, Ground War has the 9v9 players.

    The other game modes are all capped at 6v6.

    6v6.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:52 Alexander Norris says:

      People should stop referring to them as “game modes.” They’re not game modes. They’re playlists.

      You don’t get to pick a game mode and a map; the developer does that for you. The only thing you can pick is a list of certain maps played with certain game modes.

      Ground War is a playlist, not a mode; specifically, a playlist comprised of 9v9 Domination and TDM and nothing else.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:39 Psychopomp says:

      Head meet motherfucking desk

  28. 05/11/2009 at 13:25 Sinnerman says:

    So sometimes it is acceptable to be an angry internet man and rage against the dying of the light? Just as long as it is about something important like dedicated servers and not something trivial like single player games.

  29. 05/11/2009 at 13:25 manintheshack says:

    Here’s hoping this keeps the elite players away so that I can mop up the rest of the losers.

    Seriously, I could get angry about it, but it won’t help. Plus I always tended to scan for the 10 v 10 games when it came to MW. Although I might just be making excuses since I preordered the game before they released all this mindboggling info, especially since I bought it for the multiplayer. Lobby systems do drive me crazy as well and I hate to see PC gaming being snipped due to the limitations of console gaming. Lazy developers. Oh dear, I seem to have got myself all angry about it actually…

  30. 05/11/2009 at 13:25 Gundrea says:

    Every time this game is discussed people use the abbreviation MW2 and I think “A rerelease of Mech Warrior 2?!”

  31. 05/11/2009 at 13:26 Tei says:

    Removing freedom from the player is anti-PC.
    There will be players that want to play in a map with other 48 players. These are not all the people, and maybe casuals and newbies will hate to join these servers.
    To please these casuals, you remove the freedom for some to play the game the way thei want.

    This is considered a bad thing, since the values of the platform PC is to give freedom, and options. If you want to install MW2 in a datacenter, and fake a dedicated server there with 64 players in a modded map that support 64 players.. you sould have the freedom to do so. And other people to join your server or avoid your server.

    It seems the values of a console is different. On a console is see as a good thing the lack of options. Having a single big red “GO” button that automatically choose everything for you.

    I will not say that one system is better than the other, but I will say that I have played lots of games on a 64 players Battlefield 2 server and It make me thinks as games with less players as a “toy” and “inferior-somewhat-cute” games. One system, FREEDOM, give me AWESOME and AWEFULL, the other system give predictible and boring and meaningless. Theres a point here, that make us think that freedom is a superior. Maybe this why the most powerfull countrys on this planet are democracys… freedom works.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:33 Dracko says:

      Removing freedom from the player is anti-PC.

      You’re joking, right?

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:38 Gap Gen says:

      Dracko: The Xbox controller has just one button, which you must press at exactly the correct moments as commanded by the giant face of Steve Ballmer, otherwise the machine develops a red-ring and explodes.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:40 AndrewC says:

      9×9 promotes communism, Dracko. Stalin’s purge was his attempt to limit player numbers.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:43 Senethro says:

      Whats the joke? PCs are traditionally an open platform while consoles were almost always closed platforms.

      Infinity Ward imposes a single screen resolution on console players. Would you put up with this on PC? Why not? Ultimately, because we’ve gotten used to having an open platform.

      Removing dedicated servers, the option of modded content, the developer console and imposing IW.net are attempts to turn the PC into a closed platform regarding MW2.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:43 Tei says:

      Let me reply citing the devs:

      http://www.tek-9.org/news/mw2_developer_chat_reveals_more_bad_news-2115.html
      —————
      Is there a console in the PC version of the game, so we can change our field of view from the xbox’s default 65 FOV to 80 also can we tweaks the weapon damage for each gun, removes perks, graphical debris, breathing sway, also thru console like we where able to before or is this all gone?
      Vince-IW: We would like you to play the game the way we designed and balanced it.

      Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?
      Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settin
      —————

      As you can see that dude, Mackey, don’t “get it” that PC gamers want to change the FOV from the “way we designed and balanced it” to something the player want. Who wants you to control the FOV setting? the dev or the player? on the PC platform is the player. So the player has the freedom of this and other minor visuals settings (no wallhacks or something like that).

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:52 AndrewC says:

      Would someone with a bigger FOV see more? If so would that not be an unbalancing advantage? And are not levels designed specifically for what the player can see – ie blind corners, line of sight and so on?

      So FOV can change the actual design of the game. Or will you absolutely not allow designers to use this as a design tool?

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:57 Alexander Norris says:

      Andrew, yes, yes and yes. That’s not really the point, though.

      An FOV of 65 isn’t suited to playing on a small, high-definition monitor situate about a foot away from your face. Being that close to that restricted an FOV makes it feel like you’re constantly zoomed in and have no peripheral vision.

      On a 32″ plasma TV that’s a good 5-6′, it works perfectly fine, because the zoomed in feel isn’t an issue when you’re that far back. The problem is that 65 degrees is a console FOV, not a PC FOV, and doesn’t play well with PC hardware.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:02 Tei says:

      “Would someone with a bigger FOV see more? If so would that not be an unbalancing advantage?”

      The same way a guy with a better graphic card, a bigger monitor and more resolution will be able to see what weapon I have, and stuff like that, while I will see big pixels. You can’t balance a game to be perfectly fair.

      MW2 is not even tryiing that, since the hoster will have 0 ping, and everybody else 100ms+… on a setup where “the one that first win”. MW2 can’t even dream to be balanced.

      “And are not levels designed specifically for what the player can see – ie blind corners, line of sight and so on?”"

      I don’t know, and Is a interesting point (but see above). I feel like I don’t know enough about the topic.

      Anyway, If you let everybody change his FOV, it stop to be “unfair”, since everyone will set his fov to whatever fit is tastes. My head hurts with anything below 90, and most console games uses something like 70, and MW seems to use 60. But I have see people use values has high as 120 in the Quake engine.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:02 AndrewC says:

      Sit back in your chair.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:03 Man Raised By Puffins says:

      I will not say that one system is better than the other, but I will say that I have played lots of games on a 64 players Battlefield 2 server and It make me thinks as games with less players as a “toy” and “inferior-somewhat-cute” games.

      Conversely, I find anything above 12v12 to be a chaotic extravagance, particularly for games, like Modern Warfare say, which don’t have particularly big maps or built-in support for squads. Still, I don’t begrudge people their own brand of fun and it’s a bit of a shame to see those mutant servers running Shipment with 64 player slots fall by the wayside.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:56 Clovis says:

      @Andrew: Yes, sit back in your chair and use an XBOX 360 controller. That’s how the devs really intended you to experience MW2.

      Look, they don’t totally hate PC players. They did add in mouse support? Who looks silly now?

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:27 Lilliput King says:

      “You’re joking, right?”

      It seems like a fair statement to me. With PCs we can mod, host our own dedicated servers, etc, but most importantly have only a loose relationship with the ‘parents’ of the platform, MS, as the possibility of OS competition means they don’t have total dominance over the users. People can make games for the PC without having to have permission, or giving MS a slice of the wedge.

      It’s the ‘free’ platform, I guess.

    • 05/11/2009 at 17:32 monkeybreadman says:

      I’m a PC and Xbox was my idea

  32. 05/11/2009 at 13:27 Orange says:

    I much prefer the large scale battles, another reason for me to skip buying it.

  33. 05/11/2009 at 13:33 Elusive Pastry says:

    It doesn’t matter; they’re going to make a billion dollars anyway.

  34. 05/11/2009 at 13:36 DMJ says:

    *Speechless*

  35. 05/11/2009 at 13:37 Po0py says:

    Won’t be buying this. I’m not boycotting it. I’m simply not that interested. Maybe if there is a sale sometime next year. I doubt that will happen because COD4 only got it’s first sale on steam last week. I’m just not interested.

    Never thought I’d say that.

  36. 05/11/2009 at 13:38 Isometric says:

    Lets face it….we’re getting a port.

  37. 05/11/2009 at 13:39 HexagonalBolts says:

    …Eminem..? Eminem???

  38. 05/11/2009 at 13:41 Riesenmaulhai says:

    You’re all completely right and everything… but the trailer is actually friggin’ awesome.

  39. 05/11/2009 at 13:43 RagingLion says:

    In space. In space! Is there really going to be a FP space section? Now that’s exciting.

    Also, I totally just got bought TGP and picked up BTDT. It was on my list of things to almost certainly get and this price drop just pushed me over the edge to get it.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:59 Alexander Norris says:

      Buy Shattered Horizon for $20 from Futuremark instead. Presto! Instant first-person shootiness in space.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:02 Dracko says:

      See, I’d be all over Shattered Horizon if it wasn’t so demanding. It’s a real shame, really, as I’m certain that will provide a far better overall experience.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:24 Alexander Norris says:

      It’s worth noting that the minimum specs they gave out are the minimum specs required to run it at 30fps with no dips. I have an ATI HD4850, 4Gb of RAM and an E8400 Core 2 Duo which are technically just above the minimum specs but I can run the game perfectly fine with no discernible framerate drops, and that’s with everything except AA set to maximum.

      It’s still a fairly serious gaming setup so if you have a laptop or haven’t been able to afford a hardware update in a while SH won’t be for you. :(

  40. 05/11/2009 at 13:44 Adam says:

    Honestly though from CoD 2 onwards all the maps have been designed with 16 players in mind, and the game feels weird with 32 players (or more!) running around maps so small. Still not sure about buying this.

  41. 05/11/2009 at 13:45 RagingLion says:

    Also. I failed with italics again.

  42. 05/11/2009 at 13:46 Spiny says:

    This is actually a Very Good Thing. In COD4 a 16v16 match plays more like UT or Quake than COD, I generally won’t join a server with more than 14 players on already. You get far less grenade spam and random deaths. For whatever (console) reasons, the maps just aren’t big enouhg for more.

    That’s all a moot point though. It’ll be crap having some 11yo drop his hosting of a 5v5 game because it’s bedtime or he’s loosing. I’m not buying it without dedicated server support…

  43. 05/11/2009 at 13:48 Cooper says:

    Hate all you want, but this will sell.

    All over the world on Christmas day there will be countless thousands of little DVD case sized presents containing this game (mostly for the XBox), and there will be thousands playing that same afternoon.

    These presents will have been bought at the inflated price because, well, it’s Christmas – and your loved one did -really- want this game.

    It will be loved by millions and the game will be a huge success.

    Our rightoues indignation means squat all to a company who will be rolling in cash.

    Moreover the chances are this will supplant CoD4 as the most pirated PC game ever. IW will blame the drop in sales on the PC as due to piracy.

    For a game which will make as much as this will make, a publisher would be stupid to chase PC lovers.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:51 lumpi says:

      You know, we made a PC version, but actually, we don’t really give a shit and hate you guys. Will you buy it please? Because if you don’t we’ll conclude that PC customers simply don’t exist.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:00 AndrewC says:

      You can phrase it in terms of money, but try phrasing in terms of the player base. There will be ten million casual-by-our-standards players and maybe a million of us. It’s a tragedy that they’d actually remove stuff we’d like, but it makes perfect sense to be focusing on the play experience of that massive majority. That majority isn’t us.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:51 TotalBiscuit says:

      Your logic seems nonexistent here. There are only 3 possible reasons for these decisions

      1) Ignorance of the platform – This is obviously not true bearing in mind IW’s previous pedigree and Activision’s frequent PC releases.

      2) The belief that the cost of properly porting the game would outweigh the potential profits for doing so – This seems absurdly unlikely. How hard can it really be to implement basic stuff like non-fixed FoV, larger player limits, proper server support and lean of all fucking things? All of these things are going to get hacked into the game by amateur coders anyway, so is it really so costly for IW to implement them and not risk losing sales from over 160,000 pissed off PC gamers? Yes I know some of them weren’t going to buy it anyway, but come on.

      3) They have a long-term agenda – This is the most likely. They want to change the PC market into something that’s easier to monetise. They already have console gamers paying more for less and buying nonsense like map-packs which have traditionally been free/creatable on PC. They do not want Modern Warfare’s success on PC because in the long run that’s actually a bad thing for their bank balance. They would prefer to churn out a sequel every year or two and have folks buy it every time than create a game which has genuine mileage. Lastability doesn’t make them any money on the PC platform, they can’t sell map packs because people won’t buy them and they can’t sell as many sequels because PC gamers are more likely to stick with a good game for a longer period of time than console gamers are, particularly with mods extending the lifespan of a game far longer than it’s shelf-life. This is a bad thing for them, so, off the back of a game that they know will sell, they are trying to push an anti-consumer agenda. If their self-fulfilling prophecy occurs and PC gaming does go the way of the dodo, then so much the better for them. It is in their interests to kill the PC platform. The console provides a larger potential source of revenue and as PC gamers migrate to consoles to play the latest and greatest, so do Activision’s profits increase and their control over the market tightens.

      Sounds a bit NWO I know, but what other logical reason is there? Naturally it’s difficult to prove the cost of dedicated server support, FoV and fucking lean, but I’d wager that it’s significantly less than the money they’re going to lose due to the boycott. What other reason could they have?

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:01 Clovis says:

      All over the world on Christmas day there will be countless thousands of little DVD case sized presents containing this game (mostly for the XBox),

      Pfff, only if those kids are losers. The game comes out in a few weeks. What kind of retard gets it a month later??

      But, yes, this game will sell and sell and sell and sell. Five years from now I might play the singleplayer for $20.

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:53 Alexander Norris says:

      In all fairness to IW, it’s perfectly conceivable that they decided on a few basic design elements and decided to stick with then to the end. Believe it or not, adding the ability to shoot at the enemy while exposing only a fraction of your body does require maps do be designed a certain way so that lean isn’t exploitable (especially because the engine used by MW2 has the hitscan bullets and your first person viewpoint both originate from the top of your head and not your character’s gun and eyes, meaning it’s pretty easy to find a place where you can see the enemy and they can’t see you because you’re hiding behind an obstacle that’s just high enough to hide 99.9% of your model, but doesn’t obstruct your view much at all).

      Allowing people to change their FOV does create the situation where a new player who doesn’t know about changing the FOV is at a disadvantage when pitted against someone who knows he can increase his FOV and has done it; of course, the situation isn’t to arbitrarily restrict the FOV to a console FOV but to design the PC version separately with a suitable FOV in mind. Of course, that would require developers who aren’t lazy and simply looking to make a quick buck by copy-pasting their game to a different platform.

      But really, if IW designed the whole game, maps, weapons, perks et al, with 12-18 players in mind, it makes perfect sense for the game to have a hardcoded playercount. This isn’t really comparable to them removing dedicated servers at all except in that it strips us of yet another choice we can habitually make. It’d be a bit like complaining that Battlefield 2 does not support 128vs128 players.

    • 05/11/2009 at 16:23 Flobulon says:

      These things seem to me to be things that an amateur modder could cook up in a week or two – oh no wait, no mod tools.

  44. 05/11/2009 at 13:49 Adam says:

    I’m a relatively new PC gamer, none of the crappy laptops I’ve owned in the past 7 years could play anything other strategy games (I’ve lost weeks to Crusader Kings). I was actually thinking of buying this game as the first FPS to try out on my new desktop. Would any of you mind suggesting something else to get instead because MW2 is sounding worse every day.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:56 Gutter says:

      It’s your first FPS, and you already have expectations?

      Welcome to the world of PC gaming, you’ll fit just right in.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:56 AndrewC says:

      Call of Duty 4, if you are interested in this style of FPS. It’s dead good.

    • 05/11/2009 at 13:59 lumpi says:

      Why not “Team Fortress 2″? Most fun MP FPS game out. Pseudo-hyper-realism is overrated.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:00 Adam says:

      No, not my first FPS ever! lol. Just the first one on this new PC. I was hoping to get something that pushes it to the limit. Maybe Arma 2 or OF: Dragon Rising, but I’ve heard dodgy things about both of them.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:01 AndrewC says:

      Crysis then. And if you have already formed an opinion about that one too, why exactly are you asking for advice?

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:01 Bhazor says:

      S.T.A.L.K.E.R for £5 is probably the finest bang per buck PC exclusive.

      Reply to AndrewC

      He said shooter. Not Interactive Michael Bay movie.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:16 Adam says:

      Cheers guys.

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:07 Mman says:

      “He said shooter. Not Interactive Michael Bay movie.”

      That’s still a big step up from the interactive Uwe Boll movie most shooters are.

    • 05/11/2009 at 22:24 The Orly Factor says:

      I suggest starting with the classics first and by that, I mean going really old-school. Classic Doom, Wolf3D, Duke Nukem 3D, etc. Especially when it comes to classic Doom and Duke Nukem 3D, there are source ports out there that push the limits of both PCs and laptops. You can find a list of Doom source ports here:

      http://www.doomworld.com/classicdoom/ports/index.php?platform=2

      For Duke Nukem 3D, there are these:

      http://eduke32.com/
      http://www.jonof.id.au/jfduke3d

      Considering these ports make use of more advanced features (in terms of gameplay, graphics, mods/modding, and more), it makes the lasting appeal of these classic games relevant to a more modern gaming scene.

      You can get Duke Nukem 3D from Good ‘ol Games for $5.99, DRM-free and you can get all of the Doom games (classic and Doom 3/ROE) off of Steam.

      Hope this helps. Enjoy testing your new laptop. (:

    • 06/11/2009 at 13:10 Paul Moloney says:

      Stalker and Crysis are both great for different reasons. I’d get them both. Stalker has moody atmosphere in spades. However, Crysis allows you to strength-jump up a cliff, turn invisible in mid-air, and then brain a Korean soldier with a chicken.

  45. 05/11/2009 at 13:58 Ginger Yellow says:

    I’m trying not to be angry internet man about all this nonsense that Infinity Ward is throwing at us, but frankly they’re beating PC gamers over the head with an arm covered in Hitler’s blood and shit.

  46. 05/11/2009 at 13:58 Rob Zacny says:

    I am outraged. How could Kieron get something as fundamental as the opening chapter of The Hobbit so wrong? It is when they visit Bilbo that the dwarves and Gandalf trickle in by ones and twos. Beorn, prince among man-bears that he is, would never be put off by the appearance of a large part of guests. Beorn knew all about hospitality.

    Beorn would also never gimp the PC release, because Beorn knew all about 32 player CTF as well.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:12 Senethro says:

      No, I’m pretty sure Dwarves know only one trick for gatecrashing and they pulled it again on Beorn.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:53 Rob Zacny says:

      Hell, I just checked my copy and you and Kieron are quite right, and I am quite wrong. The dwarves do repeat that trick with Beorn, with the twist that Gandalf is keeping him busy with a story. Damn. Now all my outrage must be redirected at Infinity Ward.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:56 Kieron Gillen says:

      Zacny: Beorn is one of my specialist geek subjects. Question my mighty knowledge with care, fearful mortals.

      KG

  47. 05/11/2009 at 13:59 Adam says:

    No, not my first FPS ever! Just something to push my new baby to the limit. I was thinking maybe Arma 2 or OF: Dragon Rising.

  48. 05/11/2009 at 13:59 suibhne says:

    I don’t know where to begin, but that tek-9 chat certainly removed any lingering regrets I felt about canceling my order for MW2. (http://www.tek-9.org/news/mw2_developer_chat_reveals_more_bad_news-2115.html, posted above.)

    They already demonstrated real disregard for the PC platform with myriad other decisions, but the lack of FOV configurability is maybe the most stunning. It’s not the sexiest by any means – the loss of dedi servers is one of several big marquee issues – but IW’s expectation that PCs should play at console FOVs is the clearest expression of their disconnection from the PC market. The notion that gamers should use the same FOV when they’re 16″ from their 21″ monitor as when they’re 8′ from their 52″ telly…well, it’s idiotic on multiple levels, but not least of them is physics and biology. Heck of a job, IW.

    Also, IW’s description of MW2′s typical 100ms ping as “great” just beggars belief. Who do these guys think they’re fooling? Oh right, most of the market..

  49. 05/11/2009 at 14:04 Psychopomp says:

    It’s 9 players max, not guaranteed. Good luck getting a game with that many people, with the what IW considers a “great” ping.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:09 Psychopomp says:

      Oh, and out of that entire interview, I think this one bit is my favorite

      “Since we can not kick people in ranked matches, how will we stop hackers who get past VAC?”

      Mackey-IW: Our goal is to ban hackers from the game.

      That fucking answer. I don’t think I have to elaborate.

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:30 Lilliput King says:

      HAH!

  50. 05/11/2009 at 14:16 The Sombrero Kid says:

    lmao if you’re dumb enough to buy this steaming turd you deserve what you get a shafting from bobby kotic, i wouldn’t be surprised if the box contained a dildo you had to stick up your bum while you play under the terms of the license agreement.

  51. 05/11/2009 at 14:18 Gap Gen says:

    It’s worth pointing out that (according to my hasty calculations) PC only accounted for a few percent of Modern Warfare’s overall sales. On the basis of that, it’s possible they just don’t care about the sales they did get from PC. It’s interesting they still bothered to develop for it, though – they could have just released on console and done the PC version as an afterthought.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:23 Psychopomp says:

      That’s what they’re doing, it seems.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:33 TotalBiscuit says:

      Since we don’t know the sales figures that’s impossible to say. Even NPDs are grossly inaccurate since they don’t take into account any digital distribution platforms.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:50 Subject 706 says:

      I think I read that the PC version sold upwards of 2 million or something.

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:13 qrter says:

      If CoD4 had only sold a few percent of total sales on the PC, surely they would’ve never even bothered porting this one?

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:13 Clovis says:

      This argument never makes any sense to me. Why does it matter if they even made 100X as much money on the consoles. If they turn a big profit on the PC version, then it is still a big profit.

      I also love the argument that they are making PC gamers hate this so that they will pirate. They now have an excuse to simply drop the PC in the future. Huh? If they want to drop the PC they will drop it.

      The theory that does make sense is they want to create a new market for DLC. This creates more profit. This will probably work. The real problem is that the number of gamers who really care about this (even on the PC) is much less than the number who don’t. IW is betting that those people will spend more on DLC then we would have spent on the game itself. They are probably right about this.

      IW/Activision are a corporation that is required by its shareholders to make money. That’s why they are doing. Niche players who want fancy dedicated servers (and future mouse support maybe) will just have to buy other games. We should probably wave bye-bye to IW and get on with our lives in the many other great PC games. Several reviews have noted how much better Dragon Age is on the PC, for example.

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:43 Senethro says:

      Dedicated servers are not fancy. They’re an instance of the game with less features running. They’re stripped down, simpler, so to claim that they’re extra effort on the part of IW is ignorant or dishonest.
      They also probably exist as do you think they’ve been internally testing the MP on an unfinished prototype of IW.net all this time?

    • 05/11/2009 at 18:46 Clovis says:

      I was being sarcastic with the servers comment. I hoped the ludicrous mouse statement following that would make it clear. I should probably just write things clearly instead.

    • 05/11/2009 at 20:17 lumpi says:

      “IW/Activision are a corporation that is required by its shareholders to make money. That’s why they are doing.”

      Gee, I really don’t need to be reminded that companies make money.

      What I do need to be reminded of (because I always forget) is that consumers should shut the fuck up and accept what the gaming indusry is feeding us without critical discussion of quality and service. That’s unique to games corporation, me thinks. You are not allowed to criticize them for sacrificing quality for profit.

    • 05/11/2009 at 20:45 Clovis says:

      @limip: Er, was that directed at me? I’ve been complaining about this stuff from day one. It’d be great if IW/Activision changes their minds, but I’m afraid it is not going to happen. I’m not saying we should give up, and just be happy playing MW2 as is. I’m saying we should move on to something else. Screw them and their crappy game. I’m sure IW has got the message, but it doesn’t look like they are changing their minds. They are not reacting like Valve did with L4D2. They appear to be instigating this in many ways.

      They don’t want our money. They want money from the masses who will pay for mappacks. We signed the petitions, we flooded their message boards, we pleaded in person at their press events. It is now pretty much over. This game will suck on PC, and we should just play something else.

      The way you phrased your response, it sounds like you have some weird right to play the game how you want or something. This isn’t a corporation bullying you into paying more for electricity and water. Complaining is great, but at some point it is no longer worth it.

      Well, at least outside of the entertainment value…

    • 06/11/2009 at 00:27 frymaster says:

      there is SOME effort to creating dedicated servers – they have to have a certain level of user-friendliness, they have to be able to be run without a GUI, updates have to be distributed, and, most importantly, you probably want a linux binary as well, which means making sure the vast majority of the code is written in a certain way, and means writing the rest twice. You also have to make sure they run on a variety of software and hardware environments

      However, having done that, you get access to the longevity that comes from a game with a strong multiplayer PC presence. The question is, how much extra revenue does that bring? The difference in sales between a game that’s played multiplayer for longer DOES exist (we persuaded a few people to get cod4 during the recent steam sale, for example), for it may not be THAT much more. Does it mean people are more likely to look kindly on your next product? Unlikely, hardcore gamers are a rabid, paranoid bunch.

  52. 05/11/2009 at 14:23 Javier-de-Ass says:

    I’d pay up to 5 dollars for mouse control dlc!

  53. 05/11/2009 at 14:32 Hides-His-Eyes says:

    They’re making sure that the multiplayer is as unappetising as possible so that people don’t feel they’ve lost anything by torrenting it. Then, they have a great reason not to release the next one on PC at all, which is clearly what they want.

    • 05/11/2009 at 18:11 Pantsman says:

      As Clovis mentioned, they don’t need an excuse to drop the PC, noone’s going to hold them accountable. If they want to drop the PC, they’ll just drop it.

  54. 05/11/2009 at 14:39 MrFake says:

    Speculation is food for the foolish part of your brain. Petty limitations may be merited or not, but, like all constraints, they are insignificant until experienced.

    • 05/11/2009 at 14:42 The Sombrero Kid says:

      Speculation, is derived from simulation, the single most important part of a brain is it;s ability to simulate, particularly the future, which is what speculation is, without it we would be incapable of prediction or empathy 2 pretty important things.

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:19 Lilliput King says:

      You’d do well to keep in mind experience proves nothing except that you are capable of experiencing.

      And, uh, keep this pseudo-intellectual crap to yourself. When a developer of IW’s size and bluster commits itself to a course of action in an interview, you can be fairly sure that is the way things are going to go down.

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:21 AndrewC says:

      I’m quite fond of the brain’s ability to regulate breathing.

    • 05/11/2009 at 15:31 The Sombrero Kid says:

      @AndrewC lol good point.

    • 05/11/2009 at 17:23 MrFake says:

      Speculation on the quality of the game, Lilliput. What does an 18 player max restriction in multiplayer mean for the game? We don’t know, we haven’t played it yet. Making assumptions about quality is useless based on these limited facts–besides nixing dedicated servers, which is provably bad. Better to judge with a product in front of you instead of brooding over details on something that apparently isn’t finished yet. i.e. we shouldn’t follow the hype train and instead place what trust we can in demos and first-hand judgements.

  55. 05/11/2009 at 14:39 Clovis says:

    Haven’t read a comment yet, but just wondering if this thread is breaking some kind of thread-velocity record.

  56. 05/11/2009 at 14:47 XM says:

    I have been watching MW2 since the beginning and every week the past few months I’ve got madder and madder at IW. I even rage uninstalled all COD and Activision games from my PC. I wiped my hands of ever owning a Activision and COD game.

    I then checked the new trailer for MW2 and got me thinking again why are IW doing this. What was going to be game of the year for sure, why are they destroying their original fans.

    Then I was wide awake thinking about MW2, sad I know but I could not switch off I was still spitting with rage. Even after all this time, I keep saying just leave it there are too many other games to play now anyway.

    Then something clicked I was thinking why is it not hardcore like ArmA 2, why is it not going to be like this game that game etc. This is the light bulb moment when I thought because why would I want to play MW2 if it’s like these games. I can just go and play these games. IW have never made a bad game, never been pushed around, if someone (EA) disliked something they will do it anyway on their own.

    What MW2 looks like (if all is going to work like IW say) is going to be a fun game. Not hardcore but fast paced like TF2. There is space for a fun modern war game with realistic weapons. Battlefield Heroes is a blast to play and it’s a cartoon like TF2. It’s mindless blasting with sold tactics this is what’s fun about TF2 and BF Heroes.

    If I want hardcore I play ArmA2 if I want fun there’s TF2 but what if I want a non-hardcore war game to have fun blasting the crap out of everyone. Or more like getting shot to shi.. :)

    IW have always said it’s a lot of fun and I was seeing red too much to hear it. If everything works like they say and it’s fun to play I can’t see a problem. BUT and I mean but if it’s not fun then this is the biggest fail in gaming history.

    The pressure is on IW your better know what the ….. you are doing.

    Personally I’m going to wait for the reviews there is nothing wrong with waiting. We are going into the unknown and it really is boom or bust. Not long to wait now we will finally get all answers.

    On the PC being left in the forgotten zone I really strongly agree this has to change. I do think the PC is stronger, the sales are all screwed up so they can’t see it. When digital downloads are in the charts next year we will get a better picture of what the real deal.

    The last few years all the games (not PC exclusive or PC first) have the 360 blood all over them. L4D, Fear 2, Far Cry 2, Borderlands, L4D2 the list goes on. This has to change even Epic have turned there back but that’s another rage story.

    • 05/11/2009 at 17:14 D says:

      It’s sad that their PR assault has you convinced that dedicated servers are ‘Arma2 level’ hardcore :(

    • 05/11/2009 at 22:14 neems says:

      Agreed (with D). Hardcore or casual, I don’t care. But I won’t buy [what I regard as] a multiplayer shooter that does not support dedicated servers. What would be the point?

    • 06/11/2009 at 03:33 Thranx says:

      “why are they destroying their original fans”

      Because they’re not in it for thier fans. They’re in it for money. Consoles churn more sales, therefore the emphasis goes there. It will continue to be so, until all we have left are mediocre indie games that wish they could be accepted to XBLA.

      *sigh* Where have all the cowboys gone?

    • 06/11/2009 at 10:05 XM says:

      “It’s sad that their PR assault has you convinced that dedicated servers are ‘Arma2 level’ hardcore :(”

      D you need to re-read what I said, I have not said this. I understand we need dedicated servers that is no question.

      But if MW2 is as fun as IW say and everything works with zero lag then there is a slim chance I will find it fun.

      Remember there are lots of if’s and but’s so this is why I’m waiting for the reviews. If all is bad then we can turn to IW and say what now? This is the biggest fail is gaming history and I’ll be reading the reviews crying……..crying with laughter

    • 06/11/2009 at 11:18 XM says:

      Ok that’s the final nail for me: http://kotaku.com/5398270/id-probably-no-dedicated-servers-for-rage

      If MW2 sells well it’s RIP PC gaming you just need a 360.

      GOOD NEWS not long to wait for a chance to play a good game this year.

      http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/

      Coming December, we will invite players to participate in a PC open beta. Then, early next year, all players worldwide will get to experience this premier shooter when we releases a Battlefield: Bad Company 2 multiplayer DEMO on the Xbox 360, PS3 and PC.

  57. 05/11/2009 at 14:51 Kid A says:

    How ironic that as I look at this, there is a big shiny advert from GAME imploring me to pre-order MW2. It’s like they know what we’re angry about, and they want to rub it in or something. *stares worriedly at the Hivemind*

  58. 05/11/2009 at 14:52 Xercies says:

    I think you will find later there will be paid DLC which adss Dedicated servers. If this happens i will not cry if an angry internet man blew up the offices of IW and Activision. I will be even more pleased if they recreate the ending to V For vendetta.

  59. 05/11/2009 at 14:57 Psychopomp says:

    Can’t help but notice the “time gentlemen please” tag D:

  60. 05/11/2009 at 14:58 mbp says:

    News just in

    The PC version of MW2 will include auto-aim in order to “equalize the gaming experience” between PC and console gamers.

  61. 05/11/2009 at 14:58 1stGear says:

    Hm. I’d always been more interested in the single-player component, but even I have to admit this is getting slightly ridiculous. I did enjoy logging on to the chaos of a 32-player server and get owned by speculatively thrown grenades. Maybe not so much the latter part of that sentence, but still. It’s an odd displeasing decision by IW.

  62. 05/11/2009 at 15:17 Lilliput King says:

    Excellent TGP plug. Seamless!

  63. 05/11/2009 at 15:20 Wooly says:

    Hmm…

    So, no LAN except via IWNet, no dedicated servers, no demo, no big MP battles, no longer SP campagin… and no purchase from me.

    To the AngryTank Turrets!

    “Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?
    Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings.”

    *cries*

  64. 05/11/2009 at 15:42 jonfitt says:

    *Sigh*
    Oh well. I have far too many games to play anyway.

  65. 05/11/2009 at 15:51 Flappybat says:

    I don’t mind as the maps didn’t really work with more players, the game was generally better with less too as it decreased spam and made flanking more likely.

  66. 05/11/2009 at 15:51 Smurfy says:

    Infinity Ward should make all game trailers.

  67. 05/11/2009 at 16:02 FernandoDANTE says:

    And it’s sixty dolars.

    SIXTY
    FUCKING
    DOLLARS.

    Seriously, I’ll stick with my Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead.

  68. 05/11/2009 at 16:30 Forscythe says:

    And they took out lean!

  69. 05/11/2009 at 16:38 Hug_dealer says:

    Why exactly are PC gamers paying more than normal, for what appears to be less and less of a game every time they show something about it.

    I never had alot of respect for IW before, but this just makes sure that i will never support them again regardless of the game.

    Even if they came out with System shock 3, i would refuse to support these sumbitches.

  70. 05/11/2009 at 16:56 tapanister says:

    The worst thing is, Amazon.co.uk not only took down ALL the reviews before the release of the game, they also deleted the threads complaining about it.

    It’s cool to buy a game before yuo even see it reviewed by magazines, but it’s not cool to let people know what they’re buying? That’s shite.

    • 06/11/2009 at 15:00 Richard Clayton says:

      @tapanister: That indeed is shite (removing reviews and forum posts regarding negative feedback on the game).

      Noise like this forced the backdown on Mass Effects DRM. They are an excellent place for vox populi.

      I know that Amazon are not impartial and that such review will inevitably harm their sales. I do hope that they have been removed because we are pre-release and so are going to be unbalanced at this stage.

      Lets hope that once released any new reviews are allowed to remain.

  71. 05/11/2009 at 17:04 Chris R says:

    Whatever, stuff Infinity Ward and their silly corridor game. Borderlands is better.

    Give me a sandboxy, wide open world any day of the week rather than a linear corridor shooter with trigger points to stop the flow of bads.

    Don’t like what IW is doing? Don’t buy or play their game, lots of good other games to play this season.

  72. 05/11/2009 at 17:06 monkeybreadman says:

    What happened to the peeps in IW that played games on the PC? Sacked no doubt, or bound and gagged in the basement.

    It saddens me they will sell alot on the PC despite all this, but not the next time (people aren’t that stupid are they?)

  73. 05/11/2009 at 17:36 Vinraith says:

    I couldn’t care less about MW2, but thanks for the heads up on Zombie Cow’s sale. I’d been meaning to get around to picking up TGP, now’s the ideal moment I suppose.

  74. 05/11/2009 at 17:42 Smurfy says:

    So glad I’m in this for the SP.

  75. 05/11/2009 at 17:44 DirtMacTavish says:

    From that Best Buy chat thing:

    02:35 homie_wanna_liv
    Can you dual wield SMG’s with akimbo? Or just pistols?
    02:35 Mackey-IW
    Yup SMGs
    02:36 Mackey-IW
    And shottys if I’m not mistaken.

    Assuming the IW guy wasn’t being cheeky, how the hell can you dual wield shotguns?

  76. 05/11/2009 at 17:51 Railick says:

    Uh, you just hold two shotguns, one in each hand. I doubt it would be very effective unless you were really a large man with huge powerful arms or something even then it may only be useful if you had an autoshotty :P Still sounds pretty silly. Maybe they created an akimo shotgun harness that allows the guns to hang from your vest so the recoil is absorbed by your harness instead of your arm ? O.o I have no idea.

  77. 05/11/2009 at 17:59 ascagnel says:

    The thing that really gets me is that its locked to the console’s field of view (FOV), 65. The main differences between consoles and PCs is the position you play in and the input device. For a console, you’re usually reclining on the sofa (lean-back), but on the PC you’re typically in a chair, either with a straight back or leaning forward a bit (lean-forward). Since you’re further from your TV, and leaning back anyway, the FOV is zoomed in so you can see a bit better. However, on PC, the zoomed-in look is off.

    I got Halo 2 Vista when I upgraded to Win7, which featured the same zoomed-in FOV. Borderlands also cuts off the FOV if you don’t tweak it in the settings and have a widescreen monitor. It has different effects on different people, but it leaves me nauseous and disoriented.

    I can understand the 9v9 multiplayer. I actually welcome that, since the MP in CoD4:MW was a bit too frenetic at times. Not being able to opt-out of hosting just sounds like a terrible idea. Not everyone has an ISP that allows hosting, and may be cut off/charged extra because of the game. Not everyone has control of their network (I’m one of those, since I’m at university).

  78. 05/11/2009 at 18:14 Railick says:

    The problem I have with the 9v9 multiplayer is tha I disagree with you Ascagnel, I enjoyed large servers for CoD4 with all sorts of people running around and getting killed, it was more realistic to me. If they allowed larger servers then we'd both be happy :P You could still play your 9v9 and I could have my 18v18 or what have you the only limit should be what the host computer can run. I think this is more related to the weakness of match making and using players as host than the maps themselves, I find this is just an excuse as you can crame any number of players into any map if you really wanted to, it should be up to the player.

  79. 05/11/2009 at 18:19 int says:

    I am a bit disappointed. Will get it whenever it’s on sale, just for single player.

  80. 05/11/2009 at 18:45 Lagmint says:

    I’d say I’m disappointed, but I long ago stopped even noticing this game.

    Come on people, you’ve played CoD1, how different will this game be?

  81. 05/11/2009 at 19:35 ascagnel says:

    The limit shouldn’t be the server. The limit should be what the map was designed for. The problem with COD4 was that with the higher player counts, you’d always be having airstrikes (usually at spawn points) and the helicopter to contend with. Add in the disorientation of spawning, and its a recipe for disaster.

    If the game was CS style, where you only live once per round, I wouldn’t have an issue with bigger teams, or if the maps were larger to accommodate having more players, I’d be all over 16v16 (or BF2′s 32v32, or Joint Ops’ 75v75).

  82. 05/11/2009 at 19:44 A-Scale says:

    Let’s put it this way: Yarr.

  83. 05/11/2009 at 19:46 [21CW] 2000AD says:

    Each trailer makes the single player look more awesome while each press release makes multi-player sound less awesome. I really hope spec-ops mode makes up for some of this.

    I’m also wondering why they didn’t make a quick and quiet release of this on the sly when there was that video leak of a certain spoilerific level. They could have embraced that a lot, really playing up the media backlash from that video and just on the sly said “oh by the way, 18 layer multiplayer BUT IN SP YOU GET TO [spoiler]”
    That was a perfect day to release some bad news and hope the big thing shielded it.

    And did I need to spoiler edit that or does everyone know the videos contents?

    • 05/11/2009 at 20:49 Clovis says:

      Was there actually a non-Australian backlash to that video? I’ve only really seen it discussed on various gaming websites. I don’t think Fox News has announced IW’s new terrorist training game yet. The media seems to be getting bored with demonizing games in the US maybe.

  84. 05/11/2009 at 19:51 cncplyr says:

    Perhaps they’ll add support for more players in a dlc, and dedicated servers in another dlc, both for a tenner each of course!

    On a more serious note, I’ve never boycotted a game before, but I think I might be about to start…

  85. 05/11/2009 at 19:51 YarrrMatey says:

    The limit shouldn’t be the server. The limit should be what the map was designed for. The problem with COD4 was that with the higher player counts, you’d always be having airstrikes (usually at spawn points) and the helicopter to contend with. Add in the disorientation of spawning, and its a recipe for disaster.

    True…maps like Bog and Creek were way too small for 32 – 48 players. But it was glorious TDM carnage and thats what I liked about it. If you played smart, you could escape being cannon fodder and rack up kills and on certain dedicated servers, they had some of those killstreak perks turned off to cut down the spam.

  86. 05/11/2009 at 19:56 fullbleed says:

    Well I'm not too bothered, I already wasn't buying it for one thing, but also in the origninal I never found myself playing more than 16/18 players becasue the maps were so small and it made genade spam even worse when people were clusted together. Frankly I'm more angry about the removal of lean! I'd still consider buying the game secondhand for the single player, no lean will just be anoying.

  87. 05/11/2009 at 21:19 Hug_dealer says:

    i'm actually extremely happy the console version of MW2 has been leaked and pirated well ahead of release.

    While IW will make a ton of money regardless, i hope that things dont go well for them.

  88. 05/11/2009 at 21:44 Lambchops says:

    Buying TGP will make you all happier people!

    Can’t believe there’s a sale on a game that was ludicrously cheap in the first place.

  89. 05/11/2009 at 22:24 neems says:

    The issue isn’t really about ‘omg I can’t play 32vs32 on a friendly fire enabled server where everybody has martyrdom’, it’s about latency. The odds of being able to play a decent 9vs9 are remote. The IW guys talk about pings of 100ms, and refer to playing with people in other countries as ‘it seemed okay’. This does not fill me with glee.

    Maybe IWNet will be God’s gift to online gaming, and everything will be hunky dory. If it is I shall merrily eat my hat, probably with HP Sauce, and buy a copy. I’m not gonna rush out to the shops just yet though.

  90. 05/11/2009 at 23:03 phanteh says:

    I almost always play on 32 player, hardcore enabled servers with marty and tubes frowned upon.

    MW2 multiplayer is currently holding zero interest for me. If I get a hankering to play the single player, I may pick up a second hand copy… Oh who am I kidding, I’ll just pirate it when I get bored of L4D2, Boarderlands and Forza 3.

    Fucking IW. I know they aren’t accountable, and from a development stand point they’re making smart decisions… But fuck them none-the-less, I was fucking looking forwards to this game!

    /Rant

  91. 05/11/2009 at 23:35 Günter says:

    “Oh who am I kidding, I’ll just pirate it when I get bored of L4D2, Boarderlands and Forza 3.” Fuck that; by the time time I’m bored of those games I’ll be playing Natural Selection 2. There is literally no time in the foreseeable future that MW2 will be worth buying to me.

  92. 05/11/2009 at 23:36 Shnyker says:

    Bloody wall o’ comments. Honestly never could connect to any cod4 servers and its the only game to do that to me. I think maybe IW should just kick PC, they’re consolizing this game, Though I’m a console junky so bleagh.

    Not to say I don’t love mah comp.

  93. 06/11/2009 at 00:38 ManaTree says:

    The issue here is not that 9v9 is better. It’s the fact that IW is taking away a SHITLOAD of control from the user. THAT, my friend, is bad. Very bad. They’re literally locking the buyers in to their system.

    That’s the problem.

  94. 06/11/2009 at 01:29 Persus-9 says:

    I just noticed this http://kotaku.com/5398255/activision-improvement-in-consumer-experience-will-outweigh-modern-warfare-2-pc-complaints

    Long story shot they actually got called on this stuff by a financial analyst during an earnings call. I’m amazed to be honest. Either there’s one rather unprofessional PC gamer financial analyst out there with an axe to grind or all the shouting has managed to worry someone Activision probably do care about.

    Well I’m going to do my bit by not buying this until the price drops quite significantly but I was kind of planning to do that as soon as they annouced what the starting price would be.

  95. 06/11/2009 at 03:43 Spacewalk says:

    Modern Warfare 2 doesn’t have dedicated server support but Time Gentlemen, Please! has a big stompy robot.

    I think I know which one is more relevant to PC gamers.

  96. 06/11/2009 at 06:02 Sexyboi69 says:

    Eminem rapping makes me instantly hate this trailer.

  97. 06/11/2009 at 08:50 v.dog says:

    No dedicated servers, and only 9v9 MP? Man, it’s not even worth the bandwith to pirate it.

  98. 06/11/2009 at 09:30 CaseytheBrash says:

    Thank God, hopefully this ends the series for PC. The Hollywoodization of the gaming industry has finally come about. The devs whine like directors the corp suits make idiotic statements at a high rate of speed. And the people working on the game are so detached from reality they could not connect with the fan base on anything but the most base level, they live in a little MW2 created world (listen to some of them talk about the range time they get). When you start buying your own bullshit…

  99. 06/11/2009 at 10:12 Paul Moloney says:

    I presume the “MW” in the title now stands for “Mini War!”.

    To be honest, my favourite COD was number 1 and it’s all been slightly downhill from there so I’m not upset by this, but I can imagine PC fans of the series are gutted. Their PR people seem to be the type who give the profession its bad name (I imagine they all look like Burke from “Aliens”).

    P.

  100. 06/11/2009 at 10:54 Po0py says:

    http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/pc-modern-warfare-2-its-much-worse-than-you-thought.ars

    Might have been posted before but this link gives a great run down of all the problems with this release.

    As I said before. I won’t be buying this game. I’m not boycotting it. I’m simply not interested.

  101. 06/11/2009 at 11:19 XM says:

    Ok that’s the final nail for me: http://kotaku.com/5398270/id-probably-no-dedicated-servers-for-rage

    If MW2 sells well it’s RIP PC gaming you just need a 360.

    GOOD NEWS not long to wait for a chance to play a good game this year.

    http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/

    Coming December, we will invite players to participate in a PC open beta. Then, early next year, all players worldwide will get to experience this premier shooter when we releases a Battlefield: Bad Company 2 multiplayer DEMO on the Xbox 360, PS3 and PC.

    • 06/11/2009 at 11:28 Psychopomp says:

      Koztah
      11/05/09

      John Carmack waited. The lights above him blinked and sparked out of the air. There
      were consoles in the base. He didn’t see them, but had expected them now for years.

      His warnings to PC Gamers were not listenend to and now it was too late. Far too late
      for now, anyway.

      John was a programmer for fourteen years. When he was young he watched the
      spaceships and he said to dad “I want to program the games daddy.”
      Dad said “No! You will BE KILL BY CONSOLES”

      There was a time when he believed him. Then as he got oldered he stopped. But now in
      the convention floor of the E3 he knew there were consoles.
      “This is PC Gamers” the radio crackered. “You must fight the consoles!”
      So John gotted his compiler and wrote up the Rage engine.
      “HE GOING TO KILL US” said the consoles.

      “I will shoot at him” said the 360 and he fired the RROD missiles. John
      compiled at him and tried to blew him up. But then the ceiling fell and they were
      trapped and not able to compete.

      “No! I must kill the consoles” he shouted

      The radio said “No, John. You are the consoles”
      And then John was ditching dedicated servers.

    • 06/11/2009 at 12:03 Tei says:

      Somewhat true:
      Doom3 was 4 players P2P.

      but probably he is unhappy about the result.

  102. 06/11/2009 at 15:02 XM says:

    The official answer to all MW2 problems will result in “balanced” answers.

    IW forum 10 Nov 09:

    “I cannot connect to IWnet WTF??”

    IW_dev: IWNet is not balanced today for your connection you cannot kill people today. You need less killing more DJ Hero so your life is balanced again. Buy DJ hero from our publisher it’s good.

    “MW2 crashes to desktop”

    IW_dev: Your PC is not balanced to run MW2 you need to buy a PC from our partners.

    “I feel sick walking around in MW2 WTF is up with the FOV?”

    IW_dev: You are feeling sick because you are not balanced, sit in a dark room. Then when you are feeling better buy DJ hero before you continue with MW2.

    “My 19th friend cannot connect”

    IW_dev: You have too many friends to have a balanced life this is not good for you. Your other friends should buy DJ hero until there is a slot free.

    You get the idea now. ;)

  103. 06/11/2009 at 20:35 Railick says:

    I agree! I think I even said that before on RPS forums.

  104. 19/11/2009 at 03:09 Investor says:

    Activision Shares are down from $13.14 USD to $11.87 USD.

    Middle of October 2009 the share price was nearly $13, now at 11.87 so shares have fallen nearly 10%. And thats on the back of the biggest game sales in a 5 day period for the launch of COD MW2 of $550mil USD.

    Investor commentators are using websites like Metacritic to guage how well a game will sell in the end, and how many of games each company has on there. So if Activision have several bad games then it’s share price goes down, if they have several good then it goes up.

    With so many PC buyers raging about the game this could be surpressing the share price even though they have made $550mil in sales in first 5 days.

    Keep the pressure on, at least Activision have the money to fund proper PC development of COD MW2 and provide some dedicated servers.

    Good luck all.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Respond to our gibber

Read our finest words

Thief: Eidos’ Words Vs My E3 Playthrough

Search for clues

Play indie, mods, demos

Browse the archive