bit-gamer.net

IW responds to Modern Warfare 2 server snafu

IW responds to Modern Warfare 2 server snafu

Infinity Ward has stood by it's new matchmaking system for Modern Warfare 2, IWNet.

Infinity Ward has responded to fans who have begun petitioning the developer in protest against the new IWNet matchmaking system announced for Modern Warfare 2, which removes support for clan matches and dedicated servers.

Infinity Ward's comments come in a confusingly aggressive article that stand firmly alongside the developer; "This may shock some gamers with advanced persecution complexes -- this move was not made to tweak the noses of the PC community," writes GI's Adam Biessener.

An online petition against Infinity Ward's lack of support for dedicated servers and the roll out of IWNet has gathered more than 100,000 signatures since the system was first announced on Monday.

"We're just prioritizing the player experience above the modders and the tuners," said Infinity Ward's Jason West, who says the team got a huge amount of feedback from players who said they couldn't find good servers to play the original Modern Warfare on because of modders, skill disparities and cheaters.

"We thought maybe it would be cool if the fans could play the game," laughed West.

Infinity Ward stands by the idea that IWNet will offer the best experience for the majority of gamers and says that this, not piracy fears, were the main reason for the changes.

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

100 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
cjoyce1980 21st October 2009, 12:30 Quote
OMG.... so what, it will play like the 360/PS3 version which is better if you want to play a fair match without cheating and hacks, but as long as mod support is there, i cant see there being a problem.

fair matches against similiar skill level of players, so if you haven't had time to play the game every waking moment like some, you still have a good chance of enjoying a fair game.

to many pc fanboys stuck in the past if you ask me. if you don't like it then don't play it.
Gunsmith 21st October 2009, 12:31 Quote
what a bunch of arrogant pricks!

dont worry cjoyce1980, we wont be playing it, we'll be playing something better.
general22 21st October 2009, 12:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Jason West, who says the team got a huge amount of feedback from players who said they couldn't find good servers to play the original Modern Warfare on because of modders, skill disparities and cheaters.

Wow so modders had a hand in ruining COD4 for some so called "fans" of the game, honestly what the **** is going at IW. I would like to see the statistics for this feedback but I know it doesn't exist in significant numbers. It's just another excuse being peddled by IW to hide the obvious reason which is to make money of DLC which will be the only option for new maps.


If this system was so awesome why didn't they mention it earlier, it's because they knew that this wouldn't go down well with PC gamers so they hid it for as long as possible. I can understand developers wanting money, cracking down on piracy, hell 3 layers of DRM would be better than this, it's sad to see IW following or being forced to follow the new Activision policy of screw the gamer over if it makes us more money.

Borderlands will get my money instead of this.
Zero_UK 21st October 2009, 12:40 Quote
lol, I find it amusing how much people can flip. Possibly the most anticipated game of the year suddenly is hated upon...

We can't judge or hate upon a new formula before we've really tested it. Perhaps if this was just for a players ranking ladder?

To be fair, the issue here could have all just been solved with server filters on a browsing system. As I do usually find a server I enjoy and stick to about 5 - 7 as you get regulars who you get to know etc.

But, lets be a little bit more mature about this?
UrbanMarine 21st October 2009, 12:41 Quote
Woohoo now I can play on lag filled servers!
Hustler 21st October 2009, 12:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by general22
it's sad to see IW following or being forced to follow the new Activision policy of screw the gamer over if it makes us more money.

Not surprising that an American company finds a new way to screw consumers is it though...

All because they want 2 Ferraris, 2 houses etc...etc...etc....just pure greed.

screw the lot of them.

If they climb down and reinstate servers i will gladly reinstate my pre order, if not i will happily turn to certain sites on release day without a moments guilt or hesitation.

Once the single player campaign is done and dusted i will discard it......with no multiplayer component worth a damn if bought legitimately, im not missing out on anything.


Take note IW, this is what happens when greed runs your company...
robyholmes 21st October 2009, 12:43 Quote
Would it not be better to filter 'Modded Server' with 'Original Servers' or even Server List and a matchmaking system? Many games do this and it gets the best of both worlds! Remove it all together is just madness.
UrbanMarine 21st October 2009, 12:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by robyholmes
Would it not be better to filter 'Modded Server' with 'Original Servers' or even Server List and a matchmaking system? Many games do this and it gets the best of both worlds! Remove it all together is just madness.

That would make too much sense and the kiddies couldn't complain.
frontline 21st October 2009, 12:54 Quote
Quote:
"We thought maybe it would be cool if the fans could play the game," laughed West.

That bit will be true, but not sure how many 'fans' will be left on PC.

I think Borderlands will get my cash until something more worthwhile appears on the PC.
Cobalt 21st October 2009, 12:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by general22
Borderlands will get my money instead of this.

Same. Cancelled my MW2 pre-order, used the money to pre-order Borderlands instead. Seems like IW's screw up will do wonders for Gearbox's sales.
liratheal 21st October 2009, 13:10 Quote
..Prioritising the experience?

Give us dedicated servers you ****sticks.
[PUNK] crompers 21st October 2009, 13:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt
Quote:
Originally Posted by general22
Borderlands will get my money instead of this.

Same. Cancelled my MW2 pre-order, used the money to pre-order Borderlands instead. Seems like IW's screw up will do wonders for Gearbox's sales.

yup this is what i've done! seriously though which of the two looks more original and interesting? i reckon we might end up being right chuffed that IW are a load of x-box humping tards
Jipa 21st October 2009, 13:15 Quote
Hey asshats, how about not listening to the crybabies who can't find a goddamn server? If someone really is handless enugh not to find a good server then most obviously online gaming isn't meant for him/her. Jesus...

Also it never occurred to IW that with the current scheme, there will be no "fans" to like the new system... This is so retarded it just makes me angrier every time I hear about it.

Don't fix what ain't broken.
13eightyfour 21st October 2009, 13:18 Quote
Standard response imo, he was hardly going to come out and say, "weve done it so that we can sell you DLC at a later date" was he.
chocolateraisins 21st October 2009, 13:20 Quote
Doesn't L4D use a similar system? Yet I don't hear no one saying they won't buy it..

I know they use dedicated servers too, but L4D still uses a lobby system..

Also, I see infinity ward thinks modders are the evil guys, when a certain company (I think called 'Valve') has made probably the best games ever, from the help of modders (DOD:S, CS:S). Why can't more companies support the community rather than putting there corporate willies up our bums.

:(
Hustler 21st October 2009, 13:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocolateraisins
Why can't more companies support the community rather than putting there corporate willies up our bums.

:(

Because they want more money....its not complicated.
Thedarkrage 21st October 2009, 13:29 Quote
I can see where there coming from and i can see that it could be a good idea. But they could easily use both systems it wouldn't be hard to do let ppl pick what they want not force them in to it.

I would play on the iw.net for a quick game with no mods but i want the choice to play on a server with pro-mods or custom maps and i think that that is the big problem they could so easily fix
general22 21st October 2009, 13:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocolateraisins
Doesn't L4D use a similar system? Yet I don't hear no one saying they won't buy it..

I know they use dedicated servers too, but L4D still uses a lobby system..

:(

That is different, you can still use a server browser and dedicated servers can have custom maps, mods etc since they aren't controlled by valve. It was basically a matchmaking interface to the standard dedicated server system. The issue here is that this will be a P2P matchmaking system ONLY which is generally inferior in terms of network performance to a dedicated server.
smc8788 21st October 2009, 13:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by titanium angel
Standard response imo, he was hardly going to come out and say, "weve done it so that we can sell you DLC at a later date" was he.

Well, he could have at least been polite rather than releasing a statement that looked like it was written by an insolent 10 year old child and filled with sarcastic undertones. Clearly they have no respect for the PC community, so why should we bother to show respect to them?
Darth_yoda 21st October 2009, 13:32 Quote
For goodness sakes are they trying as hard as they possibly can to force people to not buy their game? £55 for a game is hard to justify for a pc game and every bit of news I hear about this game is just another nail in the coffin. Is there any news on whether mods will be allowed?
Abhorsen 21st October 2009, 13:33 Quote
My main concern is how this shafts competitve gaming for COD....

COD4 MW2 was eagerly anticipated by the competitive community. Not too sure what will happen now.
bogie170 21st October 2009, 13:34 Quote
I'll try their server system but i'm guessing it will suck and be totally non responsive after being flooded.

Don't like the fact they are not supporting the modding scene. I think they have forgotten their roots and become too big for their boots.

Don't give up fighting anyone.
Abhorsen 21st October 2009, 13:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogie170
I'll try their server system but i'm guessing it will suck and be totally non responsive after being flooded.

Don't like the fact they are not supporting the modding scene. I think they have forgotten their roots and become too big for their boots.

Don't give up fighting anyone.

I'm pretty sure that despite such a large protest it is far too late for them to change an aspect as large as this so close to release date.
smc8788 21st October 2009, 13:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_yoda
For goodness sakes are they trying as hard as they possibly can to force people to not buy their game? £55 for a game is hard to justify for a pc game and every bit of news I hear about this game is just another nail in the coffin. Is there any news on whether mods will be allowed?

No dedicated servers = no mods, so no, not if they don't put them back in.

And the PC version isn't £55, that's just the PS3 and 360 versions after the console tax, and even then you can get it for ~£45, ~£35 on the PC. That's still expensive compared to other games, though.
bradders2125 21st October 2009, 13:46 Quote
Didn't someone recently say PC gaming is dying or something like that. Well now we know the reason.

Should we all just sell the PC's, buy one of these and become console gamers. Its gonna be the same experience.
Gunsmith 21st October 2009, 13:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradders2125

Should we all just sell the PC's, buy one of these and become console gamers. Its gonna be the same experience.

no it wont, i dont want to play with 10 year old chavs whose every other word is "****"
salesman 21st October 2009, 13:54 Quote
So a little over 20 people hate this idea. ;P FYI my brother loves Borderlands.
Er-El 21st October 2009, 13:57 Quote
I recommend everyone to read Rob Bowling's blog on this.
smc8788 21st October 2009, 13:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Er-El
I recommend everyone to read Rob Bowling's blog on this.

Why? It doesn't say anything we don't already know about how matchmaking systems work on the consoles. It's just more marketing tripe to try and make you think that IWNET is better than dedicated servers.
Psytek 21st October 2009, 14:00 Quote
This is what happens when an xbox fanboy is hired to be the publicist for a cross platform game. He doesn't know anything about PC gaming, so he can't even answer simple questions like whether IWnet will run servers, or if it will be listen servers on people's machines.

If you want make a PC game, you have to let someone who knows something about PCs do the talking.

There's still a chance IWnet uses servers and that you just aren't allowed 3rd party ones. In which case, it won't be too bad, because there shouldn't be too much lag. However This is unlikely, and listen servers will be all we can have, and nobody will play because the lag will be ridiculous.
Psytek 21st October 2009, 14:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhorsen
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogie170
I'll try their server system but i'm guessing it will suck and be totally non responsive after being flooded.

Don't like the fact they are not supporting the modding scene. I think they have forgotten their roots and become too big for their boots.

Don't give up fighting anyone.

I'm pretty sure that despite such a large protest it is far too late for them to change an aspect as large as this so close to release date.


that's not true. A listen server is the same as a dedicated server, just running on somebody's home computer. All they would have to do is permit us to use it on a separate server machine.
Vorner23 21st October 2009, 14:05 Quote
So apologies for stating the obvious, but am I right in thinking the game will ship with no clear method of joining your mates in the same game?!?!

No clear method of getting clan matches going?

I'm not flipping out about it, but that just seems a bit retarded.

The tone of the statement is also a very ill advised release. I understand it can be frustrating dealing with the community because some responses are not tempered by, well anything resembling an adult attitude. However, a company shouldn't behave in a childish manner in response!

Catering to the masses is simple business. But I would argue the masses are going to be clans and mates wanting to play as a group. I'm hardly a harcore player but I'll want to get online with 3-4 mates and play this together.... any ideas?
stonedsurd 21st October 2009, 14:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psytek
There's still a chance IWnet uses servers and that you just aren't allowed 3rd party ones. In which case, it won't be too bad, because there shouldn't be too much lag. However This is unlikely, and listen servers will be all we can have, and nobody will play because the lag will be ridiculous.
Even if that's true (and you must admit, it's the slimmest of chances) what will happen to us 3rd-world folks?

I really doubt anyone from IW would bother hosting a server in India. I know it's not worth the cost, but those 20-odd people who'd want to play MP, and would rent/buy a server can no longer do so.

They're just thick and greedy.
wafflesomd 21st October 2009, 14:06 Quote
It's like Spore all over again.
Abhorsen 21st October 2009, 14:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psytek


that's not true. A listen server is the same as a dedicated server, just running on somebody's home computer. All they would have to do is permit us to use it on a separate server machine.

Ok, i'll not lie, i don't understand the details too much, i just play but how is what you just mentioned (A listen server on a server machine) different to a dedicated server?
bradders2125 21st October 2009, 14:06 Quote
Quote:
IWNET takes the benefits of dedicated servers and allows them to be utilized and accessed by every player, out of the box, while removing the barrier to entry for players unaware of how to maintain a server on their own.
taken from Here.
Since when did players need to have their own server.
AshT 21st October 2009, 14:15 Quote
Borderlands is on my list of must buy games.

Call of Duty hasn't been on my list since CoD2.
cgthomas 21st October 2009, 14:20 Quote
I don't mind waiting another 2 - 3 months for a MW2 PC release that DOES support dedi servers. I'm also prepared to reach deeper and pay £40 ~ £45 for it. I didn't buy a GTX 260 for no reason......

If dedi servers won't come after all then it's a no go for me and will be spending my money on BFBC2
Abhorsen 21st October 2009, 14:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradders2125
Quote:
IWNET takes the benefits of dedicated servers and allows them to be utilized and accessed by every player, out of the box, while removing the barrier to entry for players unaware of how to maintain a server on their own.
taken from Here.
Since when did players need to have their own server.

Since they were playing with team members who aren't all from a similar location and having a dedicated server allowed them to get the best ping possible for them and their opponents.
notmeagain 21st October 2009, 14:22 Quote
Surely they can make it opt-in?

I'd like the option to "just play" with players around my skill level, but i would also like the option to choose, so that i can partake in clan matches, so that i can choose to join a server with the lowest possible ping and be challenged.

Yes, L4D has this matchmaking system by default, but it also allows some degree of freedom to choose a server to play on, and the ability to take part in with my friends.
stonedsurd 21st October 2009, 14:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abhorsen
Since they were playing with team members who aren't all from a similar location and having a dedicated server allowed them to get the best ping possible for them and their opponents.
Yes, but he made it sound like *every* player who wanted to play MP needed to own and maintain a server.

For competitive gameplay, not having a dedicated server sucks anyway.
Deact 21st October 2009, 14:37 Quote
I think that following the decision for PC games to become one with the console versions (which makes perfect sense afterall) that it would continue the trend to produce just one product, leading to the current problem with a working system that doesn't fit the niche of each market its aimed at perfectly (P2P matchmaking works on consoles and to an extent on PCs but not for this style of game, in my opinion). Dedicated servers are the lifeblood of many an online game and provide an environment that many gamers, such as myself, wish to enjoy as it allows a much wider experience of the game be it by mods, clans or just the guys that happen to populate the server and you can pretty much guarantee a good game. The removal of the dedicated servers can be seen in many ways but unfortunately many will be negative. I'm sure this IWnet will provide adaquete multiplayer functions to those who choose to use it but the addage of "it ain't broke, don't try and fix it" should be taken into account a little more rather than the "latest" thing.

As for all those hinting at piracy of this game, I can only shake my head in disbelief as this solves nothing in either the short term or the long term. Sure, you may get the singleplayer but at the same time are merely driving the nail into the coffin that appears to be support of the PC as a gaming platform for developers confronted with an everwider console market with less danger of loosing money spent of producing these games to pirated copies.

I think the much more sensible idea is to go out and buy a game you wish to play that has less controvesy about its elements. Hell, you may even be surprised and stumble on a game you never knew or mod for that matter that means you can support those who do follow your ideals of online gaming on the PC.

Apologies for the rambling and no offence is meant but the need to vent is overwhelming!
Tris 21st October 2009, 14:40 Quote
that gameinformer article you linked to is shocking - talk about biased journalism.
And to be honest the IW statements seem to completely miss the bulk of the issue, and then tried to do a little switch around with "It's a little dubious. Some of the people complaining are complaining with their pocketbook.".
Excuse me? With hundreds of thousands of signatures and complaints, the small collection of dedicated server providers are a drop in the ocean.
And the comment about "insular communities" is also laughable - people form these groups because they like playing with equally skilled people who aren't abusive idiots. That's why people set up their own public servers and why players have a favourite list in every other game. The real players who keep games alive past the first 6 months don't want to have to join a server full of mindless vitriol and unfounded complaints of cheating. Then again, I guess the rate they are churning the COD franchise games out means they no longer care about people actually playing the game.
Centy-face 21st October 2009, 14:45 Quote
People still play all the previous CoD games to this day Call of Duty 4 still has a huge following. It will be interesting to see what state MW2 will be in 2 years after release I doubt it will have even a 10th of the players CoD4 currently has.

Oh well now I don't really have such a huge problem picking up L4D2 which I wasn't going to initially but suddenly all the annoyance of that debacle pales in comparison.
bradders2125 21st October 2009, 14:48 Quote
The best thing they could of done, would be to release a multiplayer demo showcasing the matchmaking system a few months ago. They could of then collected the feedback and edited the game. Unfortunatly now its probably too late with only around 20 days left until release.
Pieface 21st October 2009, 14:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradders2125
The best thing they could of done, would be to release a multiplayer demo showcasing the matchmaking system a few months ago. They could of then collected the feedback and edited the game. Unfortunatly now its probably too late with only around 20 days left until release.

Never too late to include a patch, although that would be super expensive for them, and we know they like their money.
Mister_X 21st October 2009, 14:57 Quote
On a slightly different approach I'm just annoyed that this IWnet will no doubt require you create an account, Why does every single game these days need to to have ( and remember) a seperate bloody login.

Cod 4 you just ran it and played it. good 'ol days

Microsoft had the right idea ( just shockingly implemented) with the Passport, one login for everything.
Sure enough "all your eggs in one basket" is the downside but still....

Anyhoo, Back on topic with you.
sear 21st October 2009, 14:57 Quote
This reply, while slightly encouraging in some respects, is utterly insulting to the intelligence of the PC community. The reason why this is such a big issue isn't because we think dedicated servers are "easier" and that matchmaking is somehow "overly complicated" (I'm not sure why we're assumed to work on backwards logic, but thanks for the kind sentiment). In fact, I'd love to see some sort of matchmaking system in place for P2P games, especially for less experienced or more casual players. You could even have servers set a certain skill rating (as an opt-in thing), so that only certain players could join. That'd be perfectly fine! Nothing wrong with it, and in fact I think it'd be a huge success.

The problem is that most of the consistent players of Modern Warfare tend to form their own small communities based on the server system. I know that the way I've always played is that I find servers with low pings, people I play well with, good map selections and enjoyable game modes. Then I add them to my favourites list and just keep playing on them. What is wrong with that? I have found a server that meets my criteria for quality simply by playing on it, and one I've found it, there's no reason for me to find another ever again. There is a certain consistency in there, especially as you start to become more familiar with individuals.

But what happens with a P2P-based system? You have no central servers, which means in general pings will be higher, along with a host advantage (making things totally unsuitable for clan or professional play), a lack of custom maps and mods (many of which players find essential to the game), which is almost assuredly to both discourage piracy and encourage DLC sales, and a lack of control by players over the precise maps and game modes they can actually play (due to idiotic playlists), as well as over individual variables like weapon balance, killstreaks available, spawn duration and location, in-game voice chatter ("OUR UAV IS ONL- UAV ONL- OUR UAV IS- OU-" etc.), violence levels, and anything else that you may want to change.

They want to make it "easier" for the end user, but it was never hard for the end user in the first place, provided that user had played a PC game before, and frankly if you're too stupid to figure out a server browser (yet somehow smart enough to buy/build a gaming computer, hm...), I don't think I want to play PC games with you!

As stated dozens of times, it has nothing to do with ease of use and everything to do with control. I was a bit worried about having to balance playing Modern Warfare 2 and Dragon Age: Origins this holiday, but now I know I'll be just fine with Dragon Age, because Modern Warfare 2 is going on hold until it's way less expensive ($60, **** you Activision, you have enough money already, you fat slugs), and/or until this server bullshit gets sorted out. At this point I'd rather burn my money than give it to Activision.
DbD 21st October 2009, 14:59 Quote
It would have taken them 5 mins to go and ask a load of COD4 players what they would have thought about this a year ago, but no IW know better then their customers. Reminds me of UT3 where EPIC managed to p**s off so many people that even the ones that liked the game gave up.
AshT 21st October 2009, 15:08 Quote
Can someone explain how the game will run in MP mode without dedi servers?

Surely the games won't be played by client host?

So dedi servers will still exist?

And these will be connected to by using a similiar lobby system that tragically split the L4D communtiy when it first arrived?

Will the new CoD's lobby system also include a team match making system like the one soon to arrive on L4D?

So clans can still compete?

And will it incorporate a chat system and friends list to help maintain communities?
Mister_X 21st October 2009, 15:11 Quote
Glad I ordered it on 360, I much prefer FPS' on PC but at least the 360 has native party support.
TurtlePerson2 21st October 2009, 15:13 Quote
Why can't they have it both ways. You can have custom matches on clan servers and then you can also do quick matches on P2P servers like they want to do. There's no reason you can't have both.
TurtlePerson2 21st October 2009, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sear
This reply, while slightly encouraging in some respects, is utterly insulting to the intelligence of the PC community. The reason why this is such a big issue isn't because we think dedicated servers are "easier" and that matchmaking is somehow "overly complicated" (I'm not sure why we're assumed to work on backwards logic, but thanks for the kind sentiment). In fact, I'd love to see some sort of matchmaking system in place for P2P games, especially for less experienced or more casual players. You could even have servers set a certain skill rating (as an opt-in thing), so that only certain players could join. That'd be perfectly fine! Nothing wrong with it, and in fact I think it'd be a huge success.

The problem is that most of the consistent players of Modern Warfare tend to form their own small communities based on the server system. I know that the way I've always played is that I find servers with low pings, people I play well with, good map selections and enjoyable game modes. Then I add them to my favourites list and just keep playing on them. What is wrong with that? I have found a server that meets my criteria for quality simply by playing on it, and one I've found it, there's no reason for me to find another ever again. There is a certain consistency in there, especially as you start to become more familiar with individuals.

But what happens with a P2P-based system? You have no central servers, which means in general pings will be higher, along with a host advantage (making things totally unsuitable for clan or professional play), a lack of custom maps and mods (many of which players find essential to the game), which is almost assuredly to both discourage piracy and encourage DLC sales, and a lack of control by players over the precise maps and game modes they can actually play (due to idiotic playlists), as well as over individual variables like weapon balance, killstreaks available, spawn duration and location, in-game voice chatter ("OUR UAV IS ONL- UAV ONL- OUR UAV IS- OU-" etc.), violence levels, and anything else that you may want to change.

They want to make it "easier" for the end user, but it was never hard for the end user in the first place, provided that user had played a PC game before, and frankly if you're too stupid to figure out a server browser (yet somehow smart enough to buy/build a gaming computer, hm...), I don't think I want to play PC games with you!

As stated dozens of times, it has nothing to do with ease of use and everything to do with control. I was a bit worried about having to balance playing Modern Warfare 2 and Dragon Age: Origins this holiday, but now I know I'll be just fine with Dragon Age, because Modern Warfare 2 is going on hold until it's way less expensive ($60, **** you Activision, you have enough money already, you fat slugs), and/or until this server bullshit gets sorted out. At this point I'd rather burn my money than give it to Activision.

It won't be less expensive for a long time. I don't know why people keep saying that they're going to wait until it gets cheaper. CoD4 came out and $50 and now sells for $40 after two years, why would MW2 sell for anything less than $40 after two years?
AshT 21st October 2009, 15:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbD
It would have taken them 5 mins to go and ask a load of COD4 players what they would have thought about this a year ago, but no IW know better then their customers. Reminds me of UT3 where EPIC managed to p**s off so many people that even the ones that liked the game gave up.

And Valve did it with L4D. We all expected another PC styled FPS with the freedom we had come to expect with HL:DM CS CS:CZ CSS etc and then we got shafted with the console styled lobby system we use now. Thank god they are releasing the update to allow team-match-making ... if a year too late, but at least it'll help make L4D2 a much better game.

I totally agree with you, Valve should never have changed their system, IW shouldn't have changed theirs.

We are now leaning over the top of a steep cliff and very soon ALL PC games will likely go this route to keep their costs down ... sorry! I mean shareholders happy.
bradders2125 21st October 2009, 15:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurtlePerson2
It won't be less expensive for a long time. I don't know why people keep saying that they're going to wait until it gets cheaper. CoD4 came out and $50 and now sells for $40 after two years, why would MW2 sell for anything less than $40 after two years?

If it fails to sell significant numbers they will reduce the price until it sells well enough to narrow the losses or turn a profit.
Abhorsen 21st October 2009, 15:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurtlePerson2


It won't be less expensive for a long time. I don't know why people keep saying that they're going to wait until it gets cheaper. CoD4 came out and $50 and now sells for $40 after two years, why would MW2 sell for anything less than $40 after two years?

Because this game now looks like it will more likely go the way of COD5:WAW. Which can be found as a shiny tea coaster in many a bedroom.
AshT 21st October 2009, 15:32 Quote
I really don't think you guys will see a reduction in price for this new game any time soon or even in the next year ...

Current prices:

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare - Steam £29.99 - Play £29.99
Call of Duty: World at War - Steam £29.99 - Play £29.99
cheeriokilla 21st October 2009, 15:35 Quote
Couldn't they just add filters for modded or non-modded servers? and if your userbase is that dumb, why don't you release a tutorial with your game, explaining how to use the browser =)
cheeriokilla 21st October 2009, 15:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradders2125
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurtlePerson2
It won't be less expensive for a long time. I don't know why people keep saying that they're going to wait until it gets cheaper. CoD4 came out and $50 and now sells for $40 after two years, why would MW2 sell for anything less than $40 after two years?

If it fails to sell significant numbers they will reduce the price until it sells well enough to narrow the losses or turn a profit.

It will not sell so little units as to not profit from sales. Call Of Duty has too much of a name built up already.


Too bad.
[ZiiP] NaloaC 21st October 2009, 15:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocolateraisins
Doesn't L4D use a similar system? Yet I don't hear no one saying they won't buy it..


:(

This is true, but also recognise the fact that L4D will only have 8 players maximum when playing Versus, or 4 for the campaign. So the bandwidth and so forth required is considerably less. Additional things like use of perks and so forth are key for me online.

I despise servers that disallow any of them and all I want is to play on the ZiiP servers with my mates, regardless of skill, rank or ping. I have a great laugh regardless and now this is currently shot dead by IW. Twats.
Er-El 21st October 2009, 15:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister_X
On a slightly different approach I'm just annoyed that this IWnet will no doubt require you create an account, Why does every single game these days need to to have ( and remember) a seperate bloody login.

Cod 4 you just ran it and played it. good 'ol days

Microsoft had the right idea ( just shockingly implemented) with the Passport, one login for everything.
Sure enough "all your eggs in one basket" is the downside but still....

Anyhoo, Back on topic with you.
Windows Live ID now.
Tris 21st October 2009, 15:49 Quote
I admit to getting a bit of e-rage building up from reading comments on this issue around the internet. It's so frustrating to see people giving reasoned arguments for why they are unhappy with this and all the responses are "waaah stupid pc fanboys it works fine on consoles stop complaining" or a variant of.
Of course there are plenty of mindless pc proponents running around spouting bullshit as well, which is equally as frustrating.
OnyxLilninja 21st October 2009, 16:34 Quote
Wow IW are being massively hypocritical here. Just a few days ago before it all blew up the Eurogamer hands on quoted this from Robert Bowling at IW...

"We'll be playing every night, watching the lobbies, checking Twitter and hearing the feedback, as well as going directly to our community and just asking: what do you think? What do you want?"

"Based on that feedback, the entire team will go back and start creating post-launch content: the things people want more of. In our heads we might think we'll just be releasing more stuff for standard multiplayer, but the Spec Ops could turn into something no-one expected it to be, and people could be saying, 'We love this stuff: we want more Stealth missions, we want more Elimination missions!' You can be sure we'll be focusing our attention on what people actually want."


****ing lol with regards to the last few days eh? Shows how much marketing bullshit is involved with this game.
kornedbeefy 21st October 2009, 16:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoyce1980
OMG.... so what, it will play like the 360/PS3 version which is better if you want to play a fair match without cheating and hacks, but as long as mod support is there, i cant see there being a problem.

fair matches against similiar skill level of players, so if you haven't had time to play the game every waking moment like some, you still have a good chance of enjoying a fair game.

to many pc fanboys stuck in the past if you ask me. if you don't like it then don't play it.

Spoken like a true console fanboy. Let me try to explain it to you so someone of your lack of knowledge can understand it.

I grabbed this from another forum thread. I think it sums it up pretty well.

"If you have never played on a PC, and your multiplayer experience has only been delivered to you via matchmaking, then you will never really understand.
But try to imagine a host hosting a game while never turning his console off, and you can always reach that room and play there whenever you want, night or day, because its always on.
Now imagine that host has a Pentagon grade internet connection and his X360 can handle 64 players in that room.
On top of that, the guy who's the host is actually resurrected Ghandi, so you will all be treated with respect, anyone using racial slurs, being offensive or just detrimental to gameplay experience via TKing or exploiting glitches, is going to be removed from that server forever.
Now imagine dozens and dozens of custom maps running on that server, which you will get for free, because IWs not making them. Then imagine entire communities and forums built around that one room (server).
You recognize people who visit that same room, you befriend them, you have fun with these familiar folks."
gavomatic57 21st October 2009, 16:43 Quote
Another PC franchise bites the dust thanks to consolification. It just strikes me as a bit of an unneccesary move by IW. Why ruin the one element of COD4 that made it an online phenomenon?
Interloper 21st October 2009, 16:44 Quote
Funny how they still haven't made even a hint of how many players this 'great and all knowing' IWNet can support. My guess: 8-10.
wafflesomd 21st October 2009, 16:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoyce1980
OMG.... so what, it will play like the 360/PS3 version which is better if you want to play a fair match without cheating and hacks, but as long as mod support is there, i cant see there being a problem.

fair matches against similiar skill level of players, so if you haven't had time to play the game every waking moment like some, you still have a good chance of enjoying a fair game.

to many pc fanboys stuck in the past if you ask me. if you don't like it then don't play it.

Holy ****....

You're an idiot.
Kiytan 21st October 2009, 16:55 Quote
Aside from lack of clan support e.t.c, the other thing that really gets me is the whole "fighting players of around the same skill" Calculating it in itself is difficult enough, do you go on KDR, some points system, what? how do you factor in supporting roles, distinguish accidental FF and team killing, there just seems way too many variables for it to work well.


And you know what, sometimes i don't want to play against people of the same skill. Sometimes getting my ass handed to me on a silver platter is a good way of improving (seeing how they do things, little tactics people use e.t.c)
lewchenko 21st October 2009, 16:56 Quote
I read IW's response... and here is mine...

My Pre-order remains cancelled, and I wont be picking this game up on PC or console now. I bought COD4 MW on both the PC and the PS3, and probably would have done the same for MW2.... but due to the arrogrance of IW/Activitision.. I can live without it.
kornedbeefy 21st October 2009, 17:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradders2125
taken from Here.
Since when did players need to have their own server.

LAN PARTY is one example! You ever been to a PC LAN party? 50 times more fun (IMHO) than gaming online with a PC or console. Nothing better than gaming face to face with your own screen (no console splitscreen B.S.) You NEED a dedicated server to host for eveyone in the room.
sub routine 21st October 2009, 17:09 Quote
for a game like this no dedicated support for clans is lunacy really
UrbanMarine 21st October 2009, 17:13 Quote
Didn't COD4 on the Xbox have an rank reset because of people cheating & exploiting through the ranks?
cgthomas 21st October 2009, 17:14 Quote
Honestly....... I just hope it's a MAJOR PR stunt. To raise more awareness for the game than ever before. Imagine that: 100,000 + people talking = MASSIVE and free publicity for IW. I hope it's ture.

4 Days before release they come out and say "Got ya!!! You'll get your servers!!!" And the community will be like "Stuff that game in your a**es. We don't want it anymore"
WILD9 21st October 2009, 18:15 Quote
I'm amazed at the lack of respect for for hardcore players and modders, I don't count myself among either group any more but their stance that these are minority groups on PC is ridiculous. Counterstrike became for a time the most popular on-line game in the world and guess what, Its a mod.
Star*Dagger 21st October 2009, 18:40 Quote
IW will join the ranks of SOE, MadDoc software and other software companies that have screwed over their customers, only to lose those customers and end up shutting their doors.
PC gamers have a looooong memory. I won't even buy Rockstar developed games since the moronic PhD who destroyed Star Trek Legacy WORKS there now, Dr. Ian Davis (ironically Rockstar bought Maddoc, changed the name to Rock Star New England and now they make console titles).

I hope to see some of these clowns in RL at game conventions, if someone dumps their soda on you fools, that might be me, ooops sorry!!!

Yours in Vengeful Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Dragunover 21st October 2009, 19:03 Quote
"lol, I find it amusing how much people can flip. Possibly the most anticipated game of the year suddenly is hated upon...

We can't judge or hate upon a new formula before we've really tested it"

Sure, like this system hasn't been used before?
I've experienced many good quality p2p games such as war rock, combat arms, halo 2, and cross fire.
For your information, those games are ****ing awful just because of how much lag there is. If one player lags at all, you lag, and everyone lags. P2P is for South Korea and Japan, not Americans on Comcast and Cox, Europeans on Virgin and Orange.
Good luck with that bullshit.
Horizon 21st October 2009, 19:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocolateraisins
Doesn't L4D use a similar system? Yet I don't hear no one saying they won't buy it..

I know they use dedicated servers too, but L4D still uses a lobby system..

Also, I see infinity ward thinks modders are the evil guys, when a certain company (I think called 'Valve') has made probably the best games ever, from the help of modders (DOD:S, CS:S). Why can't more companies support the community rather than putting there corporate willies up our bums.

:(

you can choose who you want to play with, and choose a particular dedicated server via steamgroups.
Horizon 21st October 2009, 19:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister_X
On a slightly different approach I'm just annoyed that this IWnet will no doubt require you create an account, Why does every single game these days need to to have ( and remember) a seperate bloody login.

Cod 4 you just ran it and played it. good 'ol days

Microsoft had the right idea ( just shockingly implemented) with the Passport, one login for everything.
Sure enough "all your eggs in one basket" is the downside but still....

Anyhoo, Back on topic with you.

Passport has been around since 2005
hardski 21st October 2009, 20:21 Quote
I shall pirate it for both 360 and PC, both just as easy, even more so on 360.
Single player will do, as its free.
My kids will enjoy it with a joypad and ill play it properly with mouse and keyboard!
Simples
Why do people thinks consoles are hard to pirate?
bradders2125 21st October 2009, 20:23 Quote
I don't think its the fact people think its hard as such. I feel it seems more illegal if you pirate console games than pc games.
Rocket_Knight64 21st October 2009, 21:16 Quote
They wont overturn this, ever. Not when this guys in charge:

http://www.geeks.co.uk/7282-activision%E2%80%99s-bobby-kotick-hates-developers-innovation-cheap-games-you

Wonder why Starcraft 2 is now £90 with no LAN and a 'map store'?
Mentai 21st October 2009, 23:15 Quote
One thing that concerns me is this sudden requirement for people to be equal in skill level to have a good game. Absolute rubbish.

The first PC game I ever took online was UT2k3 (that was what I was playing in my transition from dial up to broadband). What a learning curve! That game was so fast paced and had so many tricks to it. The community here was so small that I was playing in a ctf server with players that had actually competed in WCG for UT and 50yo women using a tracking ball instead of a mouse. And it was great.

The team based gameplay meant that there was always a chance the pro player would be distracted and I would finish him off (satisfying as hell) and the community was usually mature enough to balance teams equally with good and bad players. This meant that the bad players always had someone on an equal level to play against, yet could learn a significant amount off their superior team mates.

That 16 player server was full from the moment I got home from school to the moment I went to bed, until the day ut2k4 came out, and everyone knew each other.

Matchmaking will always be a laughable load of crap compared to that experience, and that's not even bringing up the horrors of P2P lag.
knuck 21st October 2009, 23:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket_Knight64
They wont overturn this, ever. Not when this guys in charge:

http://www.geeks.co.uk/7282-activision%E2%80%99s-bobby-kotick-hates-developers-innovation-cheap-games-you

Wonder why Starcraft 2 is now £90 with no LAN and a 'map store'?

there is no way this will last. This company will tank with this kind of attitude
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
One thing that concerns me is this sudden requirement for people to be equal in skill level to have a good game. Absolute rubbish.

The first PC game I ever took online was UT2k3 (that was what I was playing in my transition from dial up to broadband). What a learning curve! That game was so fast paced and had so many tricks to it. The community here was so small that I was playing in a ctf server with players that had actually competed in WCG for UT and 50yo women using a tracking ball instead of a mouse. And it was great.

The team based gameplay meant that there was always a chance the pro player would be distracted and I would finish him off (satisfying as hell) and the community was usually mature enough to balance teams equally with good and bad players. This meant that the bad players always had someone on an equal level to play against, yet could learn a significant amount off their superior team mates.

That 16 player server was full from the moment I got home from school to the moment I went to bed, until the day ut2k4 came out, and everyone knew each other.

Matchmaking will always be a laughable load of crap compared to that experience, and that's not even bringing up the horrors of P2P lag.

these days were the best of PC gaming
AltruiSisu 21st October 2009, 23:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Quote:
Originally Posted by chocolateraisins
Why can't more companies support the community rather than putting there corporate willies up our bums.
Because they want more money....its not complicated.

and by how much, exactly, is valve kicking the rest of their asses in the monetary department?

(ya, i'll give you the fact that steam is helping quite a bit, but still...)
Mentai 22nd October 2009, 02:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghys
these days were the best of PC gaming

Well not necessarily. Any multiplayer game can foster a small community just like this (although I haven't yet enjoyed a game as much as UT) as long as they have DEDICATED SERVERS. I still live in hope that I'll find another great game/community, it just won't be MW2.
docodine 22nd October 2009, 02:53 Quote
How about the equivalent to Diablo II's official B.Net servers and the option for open play? Could work?
b5k 22nd October 2009, 03:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Er-El
I recommend everyone to read Rob Bowling's blog on this.
Why bother?

Here's the fundamental problem:-
Most computers don't make very good servers and will never even be remotely as good at it as a dedicated. This is because A) It's full of viruses B) You're running the CoD4MW client + All your background **** C) You've got a crap connection and D) By offloading the host process onto the clients machine, you've practically countered all the "hacking" and "cheating" you've prevented by using VAC (VAC is better than PB tbh, so this is good).

As far as I'm aware this is how it'll work:
You join lobby/matchmake.
Player A is host.
All the other 7 players, B,C,D,E,F,G and H, are connected to him.
Player A is running the host process.

Some downsides to this:
Player A is on a home grade UK connection. 8mbit. He probably has a maximum upload speed of 50kbps, and that might be pushing it. I'm on 8mbit and I only get around 25kbps at full upload and with that going I can't do ANYTHING else on the internet.

Player A is running the host process meaning he has access and control over the "server" you guys are playing on. This means he can use a technique called "lagswitching" (hooking the orange cable of cat5 upto a lightswitch to enable/disable the connection) to cause you to freeze for maybe 3 or 4 seconds whilst he blows your brains out, then can resume. Or he can just generally use it to annoy you by lagging all over the place.

Player A is running the host process meaning he's directly connected to it. This means this player has an inate advantage over every other player. He has 0 ping. Lush, eh?

Lets say Player A leaves, In Cod4 on Playstation, you'd get dumped out the game. Anyone connected to him would just drop. Sucks. Hopefully MW2 will offload the host process onto another player, meaning the server stays up.

Another note is how demanding it is to run the game AND the server process at once. Some CPUs, older dual cores mainly, may have issues with running both of these side by side which could lead to glitches in playing, unstable play, etc, etc.

What if the player has crap hardware or a hardware fault? If their memory throws back an incorrect set of whatevers for the host process...boom goes your dynamite.

The only way I can think that this would work and allow large battles as before (You wont be able to have like 8v8. I'd imagine 5v5 would be a push on the above system) is to have some sort of "shared" host process that runs on every client who connects to the server. The problem with this is that then every client has access to some part of the data controlling the server. This would make it feasible to do stupid things like JUST CRASH THE SERVER. Why? Why not! Griefers will do anything for a laugh.

And on the note of cheaters....I couldn't afford MW1 when it came out so I staved off playing it. With MW2 announced I borrowed my friends copy but had to crack it and play on cracked server. Playing daily for a month now, I've not seen a single cheater on any CRACKED server I've played on. If there aren't that many cheaters on CRACKED servers...Surely it can't be that bad on legal ones?!

IW should realise that a DEDICATED server is better for delivering a stable customer experience because it's DEDICATED TO A SINGLE TASK. The only way this matchmaking system will work is if dedicated servers are included. L4D runs a similar system. You can still have dedicated servers for private use, but there's also the public lobby system. All they have to do is have "Ranked" and "Unranked" servers and any lobby games get automatically put onto "Ranked" servers which conform to a strict ruleset defined by the code.

But the game is gold, no chance of additions like this before release. We're going to have to wait for a patch I guess.
Bazz 22nd October 2009, 03:47 Quote
CoD = Good
CoD-UO = Great (even with lag)
CoD2 = Pile of crap
CoD-MW = Decent enjoyable game
CoD-WaW = See CoD2
MW2 = Not even gonna try

Slightly unimpressed with what I have been hearing and reading with regards to this.
I was hoping for a nice suprise, but with all the lack of this and that (no demo etc.) I am no longer interested in the CoD series.
I will continue to play on CoD-MW servers, only because with the mods and established community, there is nothing that can beat it for fun.
MW2 is not on my wants list, another developer needs to step in, and create a game for the community, something which MW2 isn't.

I pass......................next!
leexgx 22nd October 2009, 04:39 Quote
IW.net is dedicated host system, thats how it reads, not p2p based from what it reads

not likely going to buy it (may do thought) the new battlefield is what i want, i want my old game back :) (hate dice for not fixing the server crashing bug for 6-8 months 1 month after 2142 came out as they Had to fix the bug as it used BF2 code that the beta had the same server crash )
stonedsurd 22nd October 2009, 05:38 Quote
Quote:
Amazing!

I bet IW is thinking "Why did we do this?!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragunover
"lol, I find it amusing how much people can flip. Possibly the most anticipated game of the year suddenly is hated upon...

We can't judge or hate upon a new formula before we've really tested it"

Sure, like this system hasn't been used before?
I've experienced many good quality p2p games such as war rock, combat arms, halo 2, and cross fire.
For your information, those games are ****ing awful just because of how much lag there is. If one player lags at all, you lag, and everyone lags. P2P is for South Korea and Japan, not Americans on Comcast and Cox, Europeans on Virgin and Orange.
Good luck with that bullshit.
Indeed. Dedicated > matchmaking, any damn day of the week.
AshT 22nd October 2009, 07:53 Quote
Assuming IW's lobby system will compare to Valves system in L4D (ie, consolised, no real choice of servers based on numerical ping, location, players in the server) - Then I don't see how a community will build up. I've played L4D since its release and not added one player to my friends list because the game doesn't make me believe anyone is worth adding. It's got to the point where I won't play unless it's with my clan mates because I hate joining servers to find its full of yanks or russians - that's not me saying I hate yanks or russians, it's jus that when they start warping all over the map or running into a wall for 2 minutes straight, the game is no longer fun. Not forgetting the skill aspect ... little Johnny being raped by the infected 24/7 and needing constant protection makes life so friggin tedious.

CSS on the other hand works as it should and enables me to pick and choose servers that I want to revisit. Add players to my list, build friendships, clans, mixes, socialise ...

Forget these consolised lobby systems and server selecting, they are for the very casual gamer who doesn't take gaming as seriously as PC gamers always have.

On a side note, I love my PS3 for what it is, a pick-up-and-put-down-quick-fix-toy with no social aspects what-so-ever.

It's all about cost saving with the publishers. I'm hopeful that the devs don't really think these changes in PC gaming are a good idea. If they do then it's obvious they have lost their direction and need to rethink these strategies. If we wanted our PC games to play like console games then we'd have sold the PC and be sitting in front of our TV's annoying our girlfriends/fiances/wives screaming down useless USB headsets at n00b children griefing.
frontline 22nd October 2009, 08:36 Quote
Quote:
Lets say Player A leaves, In Cod4 on Playstation, you'd get dumped out the game. Anyone connected to him would just drop. Sucks. Hopefully MW2 will offload the host process onto another player, meaning the server stays up

If you check out the multiplayer trailer on play.com, near the end there is an indication of what probably happens when the host drops, the game pauses for a few seconds whilst a new host is allocated

http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/10109313/Call-Of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2/Product.html

Hilarious :)
Comet 22nd October 2009, 09:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjoyce1980
OMG.... so what, it will play like the 360/PS3 version which is better if you want to play a fair match without cheating and hacks, but as long as mod support is there, i cant see there being a problem.

fair matches against similiar skill level of players, so if you haven't had time to play the game every waking moment like some, you still have a good chance of enjoying a fair game.

to many pc fanboys stuck in the past if you ask me. if you don't like it then don't play it.

Err ..that's the thing. It's not just about community dedicated server support. Modding is gone. There won't be a mod SDK thus no servers with any mods other than the ones IW runs.
Jokkocze 22nd October 2009, 10:32 Quote
What's next? They'll release that they've skipped the support for keyboards and mice? "Playing with gamepads is better, the fans say so".

This is all a load of crap. They're ruining the game and then they charge more for it? I really cant see the logic there. All PC-users should just boycott IW and go spend their hard earned money on something else than their crappy games. Sure, SP might be good, but I ain't paying full price for a 5 hour long game with no MP. My money goes to Borderlands, just like several others have already said.
Loads of people are skipping their preorders, I sincerely hope that IW can understand why, and stops doing crap like this. I also hope that other devs see what IW's doing wrong, and avoid doing it themselves.

Btw, this has to be the longest comment-thread I've seen here on BT in years. Good going guys!
shanky887614 22nd October 2009, 10:35 Quote
how long do you think it will take to patch the game to use your own servers?
i dont think it will be very long
tejas 22nd October 2009, 11:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Quote:
Originally Posted by general22
it's sad to see IW following or being forced to follow the new Activision policy of screw the gamer over if it makes us more money.

Not surprising that an American company finds a new way to screw consumers is it though...

All because they want 2 Ferraris, 2 houses etc...etc...etc....just pure greed.

screw the lot of them.

If they climb down and reinstate servers i will gladly reinstate my pre order, if not i will happily turn to certain sites on release day without a moments guilt or hesitation.

Once the single player campaign is done and dusted i will discard it......with no multiplayer component worth a damn if bought legitimately, im not missing out on anything.


Take note IW, this is what happens when greed runs your company...

I'd rather deal with positive American people and or companies than skint jealous negative moaning Brits like you any day of the week. In case you did not realise, games are made to make money. Not to make you happy. I for one will support superior US products over British crap every time.

I am not buying MW2 as frankly it is uninteresting. Borderlands on the other hand....
smc8788 22nd October 2009, 11:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanky887614
how long do you think it will take to patch the game to use your own servers?
i dont think it will be very long

Think again. If it does ever come, it almost certainly won't be until after any DLC content has been released and they have made their money from that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tejas
In case you did not realise, games are made to make money. Not to make you happy.

Erm, in case you didn't realise, you can't acheive the former without the latter. Games that don't make you happy invariably don't sell well.

And aside from the fact you seem to have missed all the excellent British game development studios, this isn't a superior American product at all, this is an inferior one ruined by the greed of corporate executives.
bradders2125 22nd October 2009, 11:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tejas
I for one will support superior US products over British crap every time.

If America made a superior product, I would support that over other crap everytime, no matter where its from. As most people want the better product instead of a piece of crap.
giantegg 23rd October 2009, 07:45 Quote
"Infinity Ward stands by the idea that IWNet will offer the best experience for the majority of gamers and says that this, not piracy fears, were the main reason for the changes."

What are they, retarded? I would have bought this game before they decided to screw the PC community. Now if I get it at all, it will certainly not be through legitimate channels.

As for "giving the player the same experience whether they use a console or a PC" - It was our choice to be PC gamers, and consoles gamer's choice to be console gamers. each have traditionally had their own advantages and disadvantages.
- Give us a break from your politician talk - you're cutting corners for easy profit. I hope it backfires :(
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums