Today’s MW2 Mass Sigh: 18 Max Multiplayer

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:


  1. Aldehyde says:

    Dot, dot, dot.

  2. 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. Anon says:

    Lovely game design decisions they’ve taken for multiplayer.

  4. 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

    • 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. Gremmi says:




    • TotalBiscuit says:

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

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • Gutter says:

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

    • 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

    • 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.

    • El_MUERkO says:

      gremmi and biscuit sitting in a tree


    • 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. Dracko says:

    It’s all about the single-player anyway.

    Oh, and there’s a launch trailer out.

  7. TotalBiscuit says:

    This handy chart should tell you all you need to know – link to

    • Dracko says:


    • 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.

    • Dracko says:

      Leaning was always a ridiculous function in any FPS.

    • Rich says:

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

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • Abhishek says:

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

    • Zaphid says:

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

    • TotalBiscuit says:

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

  8. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

    • 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?

    • 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. Doug F says:

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

  10. 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.

    • 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”

    • 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. 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.

    link to

    • 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. Real Horrorshow says:

    Bad Company 2 it is.

    • 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. 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.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      Some kind of public server browser options will be modded into the game

      To browse which servers?

    • Tei says:

      Maybe. I may take a single “rogue” developper to implement (or forget to remove).. say… “connect to ip” by command line.
      mw2.exe -ip
      Anyway the game deserve to die, so hope not

  14. Lobotomist says:

    There is only one thing to be said about this:


  15. Fede says:

    18 is a weird number, I wonder why exactly 18

    • 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. derFeef says:

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

  17. FupDuk says:

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

  18. 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.

    • 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. lumpi says:

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

  20. 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.

    • 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, 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. 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. 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. EBass says:

    Gotta say thats a good trailer though…….

  24. 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. FupDuk says:

    Hope coop mode is good/works

    • TotalBiscuit says:

      You do know there’s barely any of it right? The game ‘wasn’t balanced for co-op’ so they took it out and replaced it with a ‘Spec Ops’ mode, which is a handful of levels with more enemies in them. Had a chance to play Spec Ops at a recent expo, there’s a write-up on it here if you’re interested – link to

  26. Glove says:

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

    • derFeef says:

      The whole game is targeted at teens, so, yes.

    • lumpi says:

      No no no, the game is targeted to “Major audiences”. Let’s not forget the “sensitive content”.

    • Dracko says:

      The whole game is targeted at teens, so, yes.

      Hence the rating, right? And it’s not like teens don’t play PC holy cows either.

  27. 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.


    • 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.

    • Psychopomp says:

      Head meet motherfucking desk

  28. 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. 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. Gundrea says:

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

    • Glove says:

      If only!

    • Sinnerman says:

      It is annoying, like I’m the only one with any memory. It would be like if everyone started calling Oasis “the fab four” without any irony or memory of The Beatles.

    • Riesenmaulhai says:

      But only if Oasis sold a hundred times as much records as The Beatles did. Which would be a hundred and thirty billion – in your strange English numbers.

    • Sinnerman says:

      Okay, it would be like if a boy band started abbreviating their name as MC5 then. Sheesh.

    • Flimgoblin says:

      MW2 is Mechwarrior2 –

      I think we should call this thing codmodwoff2

      mainly because it sounds ridiculous, which fits nicely with the recent pissing on of PC gamers

    • Stu says:

      Sinnerman: fans of early 90s bleep techno know the pain of this.

      link to

  31. 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.

    • Dracko says:

      Removing freedom from the player is anti-PC.

      You’re joking, right?

    • 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.

    • AndrewC says:

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

    • 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 are attempts to turn the PC into a closed platform regarding MW2.

    • Tei says:

      Let me reply citing the devs:

      link to
      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, 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).

    • 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?

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • AndrewC says:

      Sit back in your chair.

    • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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.

    • monkeybreadman says:

      I’m a PC and Xbox was my idea

  32. Orange says:

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

  33. Elusive Pastry says:

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

  34. DMJ says:


  35. 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. Isometric says:

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

    • Senethro says:

      Its not that this is a port, its a conscious decision to put limitations on the PC.

    • lumpi says:

      It’s not just a port!

      I mean they added graphics options, in-game chat(!) and mouse support! What more do you want?

    • Isometric says:

      Agreed, some bad decisions going on.

  37. HexagonalBolts says:

    …Eminem..? Eminem???

  38. Riesenmaulhai says:

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

  39. 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.

    • Alexander Norris says:

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

    • 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.

    • 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. 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. RagingLion says:

    Also. I failed with italics again.

  42. 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. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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?

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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. 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.

    • 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.

    • AndrewC says:

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

    • lumpi says:

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

    • 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.

    • AndrewC says:

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

    • 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.

    • Adam says:

      Cheers guys.

    • 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.

    • 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:

      link to

      For Duke Nukem 3D, there are these:

      link to
      link to

      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. (:

    • 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. 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.

    • Senethro says:

      Ah, how many responses about bloody shit did Dan and Ben have to write.

  46. 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.

    • Senethro says:

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

    • 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.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

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


  47. 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. 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. (link to, 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. 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.

    • 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.

    • Lilliput King says:


  50. 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.