bit-gamer.net

Modern Warfare 3 LAN support confirmed

Modern Warfare 3 LAN support confirmed

Infinity Ward has confirmed that Modern Warfare 3 will offer full LAN support.

Infinity Ward and Activision have confirmed that the PC version of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 will offer full LAN support, including match customisation options.

As Call of Duty fans have pointed out, Electronic Arts' upcoming rival, Battlefield 3, does not support LAN play.

'MW3 has LAN along with detailed class restriction control + default class creation option,' tweeted Infinity Ward mouthpiece Robert Bowling.

Players will have the option to outlaw any specific weapons, equipment, perks, death streaks or attachments on their own LAN servers, Bowling went on to say.

Activision has previously confirmed that Modern Warfare 3 will support dedicated servers too, in response to fan reaction to their removal from Modern Warfare 2.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 will be released on 8 November, 2011. Read our Modern Warfare 3 preview more for information, or check out the trailer below.

Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

37 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
DriftCarl 9th September 2011, 10:58 Quote
It is a nice try but LAN support is not really needed nowadays.
If you want to play BF3 on a LAN with 64 players then you are going to be attending a big LAN like i44, which has the network structure to support 1000's of gamers playing on the internet.
But I guess as MW3 can only support what 20 odd players? then LAN support might be more important for them for smaller lan events.

Still LAN support being the ONLY +1 for MW3 over BF3's 1000's of +1's wont make me want to buy it any more.
nukeman8 9th September 2011, 11:04 Quote
bit-tech acting as flame bait for the entire forum community
Mentai 9th September 2011, 11:07 Quote
The flame war EA started with Activision over these two games has done wonders for CoD's feature set, it's too bad EA has been messing it up with DLC and Origin shenanigans.
Shayper09 9th September 2011, 11:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by nukeman8
bit-tech acting as flame bait for the entire forum community

:)

Let the trolling commence.
wuyanxu 9th September 2011, 11:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
.....

i must say, MW3 is looking better by the day.

im going to be playing BF3 for its gameplay, but outside the game, MW3 ticks all the right boxes.

-user run dedicated servers
-steamworks
-LAN support

one more positive thing might even make me consider to buy MW3!



oh no, taken the bait :(
bagman 9th September 2011, 11:10 Quote
I guess it is an attempt to have a proper competitive gaming scene, nice to have but I don't think it will get close the likes of Counter Strike.
will_123 9th September 2011, 11:15 Quote
From what i have seen MW3 looks like its ticking all the boxes. I have BF3 preordered but i think i might get this at some point for some "michael bay" single player!
mi1ez 9th September 2011, 11:34 Quote
I love the way features we had ten years ago are coming back like they're new!
Tokukachi 9th September 2011, 11:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu


im going to be playing BF3 for its gameplay, but outside the game, MW3 ticks all the right boxes.

-steamworks

Steam is a positive, Steamworks is not, as the VAC system is less than useless
XXAOSICXX 9th September 2011, 11:42 Quote
LOL. What nonsense.

Activision puts a feature back in that has been with the series from the start - a game which was always very popular in LAN environments with 4 or 6 players on a map - and that's somehow being compared to Battlefield, which is a concept entirely based around large teams of players - very much suited to being an online experience.

BT, I'm quite disappointed that you're actually writing articles which appear to have nothing more than the shallow intention of fueling an entirely pointless debate.

You might as well start writing that Battlefield doesn't let you trade stupid hats, or that World of Warcraft doesn't let you call in UAVs, if you're going to make daft comparisons.
wuyanxu 9th September 2011, 11:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neat69
Steam is a positive, Steamworks is not, as the VAC system is less than useless
Steamworks will also have saved-game/settings sync, Steam friend list integration and steam achievements. all a positive.
do_it_anyway 9th September 2011, 12:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
.....

i must say, MW3 is looking better by the day.

im going to be playing BF3 for its gameplay, but outside the game, MW3 ticks all the right boxes.

-user run dedicated servers
-steamworks
-LAN support

one more positive thing might even make me consider to buy MW3!



oh no, taken the bait :(
Always one to fly against popular opinion, but often a sane voice amongst the madness.
I agree with you Wuyanxu.
The COD series are a cash cow that is being well and truly milked. And I am not overly excited by its release. I am however aware it is a different game entirely, and could be a bit of fun. LAN support doesn't interest me much, but it shows that they are looking for ways to attract the PC crowd, and reassures me that Game Dev's are not only thinking consloes. We may be an after thought, but we are a thought at least.
greypilgers 9th September 2011, 12:35 Quote
[shrugs shoulders]

Meh... I'll end up buying MW3 and BF3 anyway... It'll need to be extremely rubbish for me not to buy it just so I've got something different to play and not the same games.

BTW - Is it about time we had a different time zone for our fps'? I gotta admit, I preferred the WW2-era games for their focus and 'real-worldness' but should developers try and focus on a different setting now?
XXAOSICXX 9th September 2011, 12:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by greypilgers
[shrugs shoulders]

BTW - Is it about time we had a different time zone for our fps'? I gotta admit, I preferred the WW2-era games for their focus and 'real-worldness' but should developers try and focus on a different setting now?

It's a good question...

Battlefield has seen WWII twice (1942/1943), Vietnam twice, present day multiple times across different platforms and even the future with 2142.

Plenty of games have done WWII as you say....I enjoyed them too, but it really has been done to death. Present day has been done by every man and his dog - some better than others - (remember Soldier of Fortune??) and there have been several futuristic games in the Ghost Recon range.

The conflicts in Afghanistan/Iraq haven't been done too badly by the latest Medal of Honor reboot (and slightly more badly, in my opinion, in Red River)......but as for finding a different setting it has pretty much all been covered.

Not that there aren't a thousand wars that haven't been done, but whether or not they'd introduce anything new would be a different matter.

I suggest we colonise a new planet...say, Mars, and see what turns up....oh, wait....Doom already did that.
smc8788 9th September 2011, 13:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bagman
I guess it is an attempt to have a proper competitive gaming scene, nice to have but I don't think it will get close the likes of Counter Strike.

For MW3 to be in anywhere near playable on a competitive scene it would need full mod support, which is unlikely. Even COD4, which was far more balanced than MW2, needed extensive modding before it was played competitively. And even then, it was still never as popular as CS.
greypilgers 9th September 2011, 13:08 Quote
Ha ha - what about Grunt of Duty - Stone-Age Warfare?

Flint Axes and Bows and Arrows???

;)
XXAOSICXX 9th September 2011, 13:48 Quote
Like Mount & Blade you mean ? :p
spectre456 9th September 2011, 14:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX


BT, I'm quite disappointed that you're actually writing articles which appear to have nothing more than the shallow intention of fueling an entirely pointless debate.

You might as well start writing that Battlefield doesn't let you trade stupid hats, or that World of Warcraft doesn't let you call in UAVs, if you're going to make daft comparisons.

-This news has been on on most sites for several days already. If anything, bit-tech is late, as usual.

-Pointless debate on what? I'm pretty sure if this was bf3 getting lan support then your tune would be much different.
XXAOSICXX 9th September 2011, 14:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre456

-Pointless debate on what?

I was referring to the subtitle on the home page/news feed "Something BF3 doesn't have". Seems unnecessary considering BF3 isn't LAN orientated.

I wouldn't want LAN support for BF3 - there'd be no point whatsoever.
spectre456 9th September 2011, 14:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
I was referring to the subtitle on the home page/news feed "Something BF3 doesn't have". Seems unnecessary considering BF3 isn't LAN orientated.

I wouldn't want LAN support for BF3 - there'd be no point whatsoever.

oh, that. Well that's how they get you to read news these days. i've become numb to it to be quite fair.
Bede 9th September 2011, 15:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc8788
For MW3 to be in anywhere near playable on a competitive scene it would need full mod support, which is unlikely. Even COD4, which was far more balanced than MW2, needed extensive modding before it was played competitively. And even then, it was still never as popular as CS.

I disagree - look at Starcraft 2, currently far and away the most popular competitive esport; it manages fine without modding. All they need to do is just integrate the laddering properly, they already have a larger playerbase then Starcraft.
Stewb 9th September 2011, 15:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
I disagree - look at Starcraft 2, currently far and away the most popular competitive esport; it manages fine without modding. All they need to do is just integrate the laddering properly, they already have a larger playerbase then Starcraft.

I think the reason he says CoD needs modding is because it is hideously unbalanced ;)

SC2 on the other hand was built from the ground up for the competitive scene and, like the original, balanced for the purpose from day 1.
Toploaded 9th September 2011, 15:22 Quote
Great news and a welcome turn around, hope more games strive to include these things again in future.
Zurechial 9th September 2011, 15:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toploaded
Great news and a welcome turn around, hope more games strive to include these things again in future.

Pretty much this.

I hate CoD and I have no intention whatsoever of buying MW3 but unfortunately we cannot deny the impact and influence of CoD on the industry right now, so hopefully the return of LAN support can set a positive precedent.

The very first comment made me facepalm, though.
sotu1 9th September 2011, 15:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
im going to be playing BF3 for its gameplay, but outside the game, MW3 ticks all the right boxes.

-user run dedicated servers
-steamworks
-LAN support

one more positive thing might even make me consider to buy MW3!



oh no, taken the bait :(

Let me correct that for you Wu: Tanks, Jets and Choppers. Feel better? ;)
Glix 9th September 2011, 15:51 Quote
http://www.fileplay.net/channels/iseries/i43/14532/i43-the-quietpc-com-cod4-final-tcm-vs-infused

People seem happy to play promod, nice change from the cs1.6 tactics, much faster scoping too!

This is good news in my eyes that MW3 gets lan support, as when they tried to bring mw2 to Insomnia it was laughable. But now promod has a chance on MW3 and an update with new weapons and different balances is always welcome.
B1GBUD 9th September 2011, 16:53 Quote
In other news.... [insert next AAA release] has mouse and keyboard support.
XXAOSICXX 9th September 2011, 17:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1GBUD
In other news.... [insert next AAA release] has mouse and keyboard support.

Lulz :)
GameTraveler 9th September 2011, 17:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriftCarl
It is a nice try but LAN support is not really needed nowadays.
If you want to play BF3 on a LAN with 64 players then you are going to be attending a big LAN like i44, which has the network structure to support 1000's of gamers playing on the internet.
But I guess as MW3 can only support what 20 odd players? then LAN support might be more important for them for smaller lan events.

Still LAN support being the ONLY +1 for MW3 over BF3's 1000's of +1's wont make me want to buy it any more.

Really? The size of the LAN doesn't matter so much as being able to manage a server that doesn't require some sort of heartbeat to a master server. Competitive "eSports", whether it's a private offline practice for a team or a LAN setting, is better served by dedicated on-site LAN servers.

Why does a LAN have a mandatory requirement for an internet connection to be a successful LAN (regardless of size)? What's the point of any LAN if an internet connection is absolutely required? Counter-Strike (1.6 and Source), Team Fortress 2, CoD4, much of the Quake series and many other games are very much alive and largely successful from having both mod-ability and dedicated local servers (without needing a GSP to manage the files).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neat69
Steam is a positive, Steamworks is not, as the VAC system is less than useless
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
Steamworks will also have saved-game/settings sync, Steam friend list integration and steam achievements. all a positive.

Steam and Steamworks is a pain in the @$$. You've never had to host any event (again, regardless of size, from 15 small to over 300) only to have the client side part of Steam cripple your event tournaments. The "offline" ability doesn't 100% guarantee to work. Oddly enough, Valve does have a local/LAN dedicated server version of Steam--not that they'll let that out of their sight.

Lastly, SC2 would be better served by the local/LAN dedicated server component being made available to Event organizers (it does exist, but Blizzard only used it at their own events). SC made it's large following by having both the mod-ability and lack of requiring an online server heartbeat. Where would DoTA be otherwise?
freshsandwiches 10th September 2011, 05:15 Quote
I rather enjoyed the blops free weekend on Steam. Haters gonna hate, but the game was fun, and it certainly amused me for a weekend. If MW3 takes this forward then I can see it being a lot of fun.

I refrained from buying as the next releases are around the comer in terms of BF3 and MW3, and I still have BFBC2 to keep me more than occupied until then. I did however pick up the CoD Warchest, which after all this time is still fantastic.

It is a bit silly that things we were used to as gamers years ago are now considered features, but I guess that's the world we live in.
metarinka 10th September 2011, 22:45 Quote
seems like a lot of flame baiting. Lan is nice but not a feature I use that any more, dedicated servers and a proper browser is the big thing.

I'll be buying both, just because one is good doesnt mean the other is bad, I think MW2 has "tighter" feeling guns than BFBC2. BF3 will be good but it's a different kind of game from MW3
rayson 11th September 2011, 10:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by metarinka
seems like a lot of flame baiting. Lan is nice but not a feature I use that any more, dedicated servers and a proper browser is the big thing.

I'll be buying both, just because one is good doesnt mean the other is bad, I think MW2 has "tighter" feeling guns than BFBC2. BF3 will be good but it's a different kind of game from MW3

you mean full auto, instead of controlled burst and hip firing SMGs
Fuganater 11th September 2011, 10:23 Quote
LAN support is amazing! Might not help all you UK folks with 14 Mbps internet but here my buddy and I try to game on our wicked fast 512Kbps shared internet. We are constantly looking for LAN games to play because online is just not an option.
LedHed 13th September 2011, 16:52 Quote
MW3 can crap out gold through your speakers and BF3 will still be the better game. Is LAN support really worth an article on BitTech?
LedHed 13th September 2011, 16:53 Quote
Not to mention the new Counterstrike game will replace MW3 as soon as it is released.
Glix 13th September 2011, 21:19 Quote
Yes it's article worthy as CoD hasn't included it in the last 2 iterations, and those looking to copy the success of the CoD series may follow suit.
Diekrupt 2nd December 2011, 03:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DriftCarl
It is a nice try but LAN support is not really needed nowadays.
If you want to play BF3 on a LAN with 64 players then you are going to be attending a big LAN like i44, which has the network structure to support 1000's of gamers playing on the internet.
But I guess as MW3 can only support what 20 odd players? then LAN support might be more important for them for smaller lan events.

Still LAN support being the ONLY +1 for MW3 over BF3's 1000's of +1's wont make me want to buy it any more.

I have hosted the servers for many lan parties, when you have control of the server, you control map orders, game settings, nothing beats <1ms ping times, even with metroE or 100mb connections (which is typical for most convention centers and hotels) its not enough and also, most hotels and cc's charge per MB in ranges so to get a pull pipe is very expensive.

Let alone hosting a LAN at your house.

For this reason alone, I will not be buying BF3 but going to get MF3 even though I have owned all BF games and never owned a COC game.

Now crysis allows for dedicated LAN servers, they just don't register with tracking servers which is the way Dice/Actv should do it, just dont let them register with trackers but let people run dedicated servers locally on their LAN for even better for ladder and clan tournaments so a clan does not have to BUY a fully hosted server at a datacenter which again, costs bucks.


Diekrupt
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