Modern Warfare 2, Prestige edition, -or- hey, blow your wad on this!

[Falwell]

L4D2 will have to pry those loot generators from my cold, dead hands - which I suppose is someone ironic.

Meh, it's a 3 week break between em and with TL having no online atm, it's a moderately sized sharp stick in the dick of that one.

Should be just about right time wise for me.

[Venkman]

OK definately not buying this now. Way too much bullshit happening around this game. The MP holds little interest for me but I would still have fucked around with it on servers of my choice. Definately going to get hold of an "evaluation copy" instead and go through the 6-8hour SP campaign, then uninstall.


http://www.mcvuk.com/news/36018/Activision-breaks-silence-on-pricing
http://www.destructoid.com/modern-warfare-2-enjoys-huge-uk-price-hike-costs-54-99-140062.phtml
http://www.destructoid.com/modern-warfare-2-gets-10-price-hike-on-pc-152049.phtml
http://www.n4g.com/News-411473.aspx

Any idea if that's the same in the US? I can understand price parity between console and PC games, especially when the latter has the opportunity to come with more stuff. However, when the "more stuff" for COD6 are the very things IW has taken out (dedi servers and mods), now it's just trying to create an equivalency for gamers who know better.

I still plan to play it, but I'll wait for the price cut now. I only really care about the MP, and if that launches gimped and remains gimped, I might skip it. Which is fine. More time for Borderlands.

Not so interested in L4D2 though. The first was fun in short spurts, but it didn't really grab me.

[Kageh]

Update.

According to this interview* as mentioned on NeoGAF, Robert Bowling of MW2 has confirmed will not support dedicated servers. It will be matchmaking only based on IWNET, and private matches. There will not be a server list.

This is indeed one of the most retarded decisions regarding PC FPS games yet. I'm not buying this one either now. After the pricing fiasco I was undecided, but this definitely helped make up my mind.

[jakonovski]

Update.

According to this interview* as mentioned on NeoGAF, Robert Bowling of MW2 has confirmed will not support dedicated servers. It will be matchmaking only based on IWNET, and private matches. There will not be a server list.

This is indeed one of the most retarded decisions regarding PC FPS games yet. I'm not buying this one either now. After the pricing fiasco I was undecided, but this definitely helped make up my mind.

ArmA 2 or BF:BC 2 then?

[Kageh]

None of those were in the CoD league for me. I have no stats but to back that up, but that is how I feel about them.

ArmA2 has third-party websites providing server lists. No clue about BF:BC2.

[Azazel]

Any idea if that's the same in the US? I can understand price parity between console and PC games, especially when the latter has the opportunity to come with more stuff. However, when the "more stuff" for COD6 are the very things IW has taken out (dedi servers and mods), now it's just trying to create an equivalency for gamers who know better.

I still plan to play it, but I'll wait for the price cut now. I only really care about the MP, and if that launches gimped and remains gimped, I might skip it. Which is fine. More time for Borderlands.

Yes. US$60 for the PC version. PC games are usually cheaper because of the lack of licence fees etc that go to <console maker>, so it's just gouging.

[ahoythematey]

Dedicated servers FTW. What ever secures a better online experience is a given for us.

Battlefield Executive Producer

I may have some serious bones to pick with DICE about parts of their online experience, but that comment still made my day.

[Venkman]

If only I liked BF over CoD.

[NiX]

If only I liked BF over CoD.

I liked Bad Companies MP more than I did CoD4.

[schild]

If only I liked BF over CoD.

I liked Bad Companies MP more than I did CoD4.

That's silly. Bad Company was a goddamn mess all around (except the voice acting and script, which were awesome). Also, Bad Company was console only whereas you could play CoD4 on a PC. Therefore you are wrong. You know better, NiX. YOU KNOW BETTER.

[Nightblade]

So MW2 will have even worse match making than Left 4 Dead? Am I actually reading this right? Would someone be able to even use Xfire to keep a server list?

[Venkman]

If only I liked BF over CoD.

I liked Bad Companies MP more than I did CoD4.

Sorry, I should stipulate: PC (as schild mentioned). I don't do console FPSes. I'm holding out for the day they let me use my keyboard and mouse on the X360. Hunger strike until then!

[NiX]

That's silly. Bad Company was a goddamn mess all around (except the voice acting and script, which were awesome). Also, Bad Company was console only whereas you could play CoD4 on a PC. Therefore you are wrong. You know better, NiX. YOU KNOW BETTER.

MP wasn't a mess. It's coming to PC. Suck the fine patch of hair between my anus and testicles.

[schild]

That's silly. Bad Company was a goddamn mess all around (except the voice acting and script, which were awesome). Also, Bad Company was console only whereas you could play CoD4 on a PC. Therefore you are wrong. You know better, NiX. YOU KNOW BETTER.

MP wasn't a mess. It's coming to PC.

It was and my point still stands.

Suck the fine patch of hair between my anus and testicles.

No.

[NiX]

It was and my point still stands.

Suck the fine patch of hair between my anus and testicles.

No.

How was it? Are we thinking of the same game? I don't think we are and as such you should reconsider my offer in regards to the licking of the soft succulent patch of hair.

[Phire]

It was and my point still stands.

Suck the fine patch of hair between my anus and testicles.

No.

How was it? Are we thinking of the same game? I don't think we are and as such you should reconsider my offer in regards to the licking of the soft succulent patch of hair.

It is quite succulent...

[Tarami]

Official statement regarding the dedicated servers

[Malakili]

Official statement regarding the dedicated servers

"We're just prioritizing the player experience above the modders and the tuners," says West. He points toward the mounting feedback IW has received from PC fans of Modern Warfare who couldn't find a decent server to play on between all of the cheaters, the insular communities, and huge skill level disparities that the original game's community fractured into. "We thought maybe it would be cool if the fans could play the game," he laughs.

 

[Trippy]

I like how none of the issues raised with CoD 4's online play in the above article are addressed by getting rid of dedicated servers.

The biggest issue I have with this change and something also not addressed in the above article is the craptastic performance you get with non-dedicated servers on both the networking and CPU side of things.

Most players don't have enough upload bandwidth to handle being a dedicated server except with a limited number of players. And even if they do have a nice connection, given the asymmetric nature of broadband connections if use any significant portion of their download bandwidth at the same time their upload bandwidth will go to shit. The console version of CoD 4 is limited to 18 players max according to the specs because of this issue (anybody know if you can go above that?) while on the PC, 32 max is the norm and there are very popular servers that are 50+.

And even if you believe that smaller games are better I would argue that forcing a move to smaller servers is actually less newbie friendly as your newbie-ness will stick out more with fewer players (i.e. each player becomes more important the fewer there are) and the other players are more likely to tell you to stop crapping up their game and get the fuck out of there.

The other problem is that quad-core setups are still a relatively small part of the gamer community (currently at ~20% in the latest Steam Hardware Survey). On a dedicated server the CPU is, well, dedicated (more or less) to running the game server while on a non-dedicated setup the CPU has to split time between handling client duties and running the game server. If you only had a dual-core CPU and you were the host you could force your client and server to use only a single CPU each but how many hosts would actually let their frame rates suffer (assuming they even knew that they could do this) so the other players could have a better playing experience?

[Venkman]

This basically reads to me as: "we never could figure out how to effectively monetize the hardcore, so screw 'em". It costs them nothing to release even an incomplete API. But it does mean continuing the tradition of having clans do for free what IW and Acti would prefer to collect money on.

I am quite sure we'll see a "modders pack" down the road as some sort of year 2 DLC, maybe even with an operator's annual licensing fee. It amazes me that after all this time this hasn't already happened. Only reason I can see is because console games completely dwarfed PC games, so the whole need to think along these lines became irrelevant.

As much as this aggravates me as a gamer, I think this was a risk worth taking as a business. So they piss off a few thousand freeloaders (not freeloaders in reality, but seen as such by them I'm sure). And? Game's probably going to sell well north of 10mil copies by Feb anyway, with 90% of that on console. Those truly aggravated by that will just make MW2 maps and weapons as a mod to COD4 anyway.

[Amaron]

And even if you believe that smaller games are better I would argue that forcing a move to smaller servers is actually less newbie friendly as your newbie-ness will stick out more with fewer players (i.e. each player becomes more important the fewer there are) and the other players are more likely to tell you to stop crapping up their game and get the fuck out of there.

This is very true.   Most unskilled players I know avoid small servers like the plague.   I can't fathom what they are thinking either.   Going back in PC history having bigger servers with more players was a huge selling point for FPS's.   The average unskilled player was far more likely to enjoy himself on a 32 man server.

IW can spout whatever nonsense they like but if MW2 really is shipping with peer to peer that's going to mean 16 people max with horrible lag.  The amount of heat they will catch from casual gamers over that will be epic. 

[Falwell]

I love how they try to insinuate that this is driven by money grubbing server providers. Irony itt.

[Megrim]

And even if you believe that smaller games are better I would argue that forcing a move to smaller servers is actually less newbie friendly as your newbie-ness will stick out more with fewer players (i.e. each player becomes more important the fewer there are) and the other players are more likely to tell you to stop crapping up their game and get the fuck out of there.

This is very true.   Most unskilled players I know avoid small servers like the plague.   I can't fathom what they are thinking either.   Going back in PC history having bigger servers with more players was a huge selling point for FPS's.   The average unskilled player was far more likely to enjoy himself on a 32 man server.

IW can spout whatever nonsense they like but if MW2 really is shipping with peer to peer that's going to mean 16 people max with horrible lag.  The amount of heat they will catch from casual gamers over that will be epic.  

And they will not care, because as mentioned, 90% of the sales are going to be console.

[Amaron]

And they will not care, because as mentioned, 90% of the sales are going to be console.

Even the very worst numbers I could find say COD4 PC was at least 15% of sales.  They never released official by the system numbers though.   The amount of time COD4 spent on top of the charts suggest it must of sold at least a few million copies on the PC which would put it closer to 20~25% real sales.   In addition apparently all numbers reported ignore digital sales.  I'm also a bit curious if they fudge their numbers a bit by including used copies as original sales.   Doing so would pad the total and possibly look better to investors.

Either way it doesn't actually matter.   Even your "outta my ass" 10% is a pile of money so big that heads will roll if it tanks on the PC.

[tgr]

I'm disappointed. I'm usually attending 2 LAN parties a year, on which we've played W@W and MW1, and I''m sure the people arranging the LAN party were looking forward to MW2, but I suppose that's not going to happen.

Oh well. At least they won't put in online activation and activation limits.

[NiX]

Possibly the highest online petition I've ever seen

[caladein]

Details from IW's Robert Bowling.

TL;DR:

• Server Browsers SUCK!  We'll automagically pick a game with your preferred game type, appropriate skill level, AND best ping.
• Private Matches running off your computer still let you play against other clans, it's cool!
• Party System and Friends List, FEATURE MOTHERFUCKERS!
• Valve Anti-Cheat, WOOOOOOOOOOO!

For any serious play, the Private Match statement is complete BS.  I'm dubious (and that's being generous) that the matchmaking, especially in a party, won't just send me to servers in Taipei three-quarters of the time.  And Valve Anti-Cheat needing this mythical IWNET is him just lying through his teeth.

[jakonovski]

Let us not forget that on the 360, peer hosted matchmaking has always resulted in a high number of unplayable games due to lag, mismatch or idiot players. Up to 20% in my experience. 

[NiX]

Let us not forget that on the 360, peer hosted matchmaking has always resulted in a high number of unplayable games due to lag, mismatch or idiot players. Up to 20% in my experience. 

He mentioned Valve, which refers to PC. You don't count.

[Amaron]

Let us not forget that on the 360, peer hosted matchmaking has always resulted in a high number of unplayable games due to lag, mismatch or idiot players. Up to 20% in my experience. 

He mentioned Valve, which refers to PC. You don't count.

I think his point was we are apparently going to get peer hosted on the PC.  Thus we are screwed.

[jakonovski]

I think his point was we are apparently going to get peer hosted on the PC.  Thus we are screwed.

Yeah, as far as I can tell they're just bringing console matchmaking over to the pc and marketing it as progress, when in reality it's shit.

[NiX]

I think his point was we are apparently going to get peer hosted on the PC.  Thus we are screwed.

Don't take me seriously, I agree, we are doomed. I don't plan to buy it after that revelation.

[ashrik]

I like how they're painting PC gamers as some kind of hardcore fringe fanatic, on the level of those people who refuse to acknowledge FO3 as a real Fallout game. I disabled the matchmaker in L4D because I thought it was stupid. I like choosing, they should have made it an option.

[Venkman]

That's exactly the vibe they are giving plus that the kind of PC gamers who are bitching about this are too small a market to really care about. So basically, if they thought this would piss anyone off (and I have my doubts that they thought about it at all), they don't think they need to care.

I too want to choose. And I won't be getting this one until I can. Too many other better games already out (and a few coming) to spend money on. But then, I'm in that market they don't care about anyway

[NiX]

That petition has legs. In 24 hours they've gained another 20K signatures.