Every game since (and including) cod2 we've got has been the console version. All they did was slap graphics options and the server browser into it. The actual gameplay remained unchanged which is one of my biggest gripes, its simply far too easy to kill people online becuse of the recoil and health system they have.
Digg.com - Modern Warfare 2 boycott.
- Thread starter 4p
- Start date
Every game since (and including) cod2 we've got has been the console version. All they did was slap graphics options and the server browser into it. The actual gameplay remained unchanged which is one of my biggest gripes, its simply far too easy to kill people online becuse of the recoil and health system they have.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 1,524
- Location
- To die by your side......
it is because 800,000 people won't mind.
MW2 wont beat MW1 sales figures though ... which makes the game a failure as any sequel needs to beat the sales of the original to be considered a success imo.
Its ridiculous that IW think that becuase it may be easier to find a game, people who don't normally buy PC games are oging to buy it in there droves.
The only thing this is going to acheive is reduced PC sales, those that already play PC games know how to use servers.
Those that don't play Pc games dont play PC games, matchmaking isn't going to change that.
The only thing this is going to acheive is reduced PC sales, those that already play PC games know how to use servers.
Those that don't play Pc games dont play PC games, matchmaking isn't going to change that.
No, because IW says it's going to both easy to find a game and more importantly because they say it will find you a fair game at your skill level.
people that don't normally buy mp games will buy it.
as it clears up many reservations they have, ie it being overly difficult (well at least they think it is) and their fears they won't enjoy it because people will keep killing them over and over.
Both pretty BS reasons but marketing spin makes them seem like good reasons.
Bet it still sells better than the last one.
The console version yes, think after the initial excitement PC gamers (those that buy MW2) will return to COD4.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
I really don't understand why all these amazing matchmaking features couldn't have been done with dedicated servers? I'm pretty sure I've seen other games do similiar things.
The whole thing sounds like complete BS to me and clearly a decision that's been made somewhere high up, by some nubcake who probably hasn't played a single PC game in his life.
Even if their concerns for this imaginary oppressed 'mainstream gamer' is genuine, wtf are they doing playing PC games? If you can't stand getting you're ass whipped by people who are better than you, get a console, simple as.
The whole thing sounds like complete BS to me and clearly a decision that's been made somewhere high up, by some nubcake who probably hasn't played a single PC game in his life.
Even if their concerns for this imaginary oppressed 'mainstream gamer' is genuine, wtf are they doing playing PC games? If you can't stand getting you're ass whipped by people who are better than you, get a console, simple as.
WIRED make a blog post in our support:
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/10/modern-warfare-servers/
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/10/modern-warfare-servers/
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 7,302
- Location
- Tamworth
If the matchmaking is anything like Quake Live, then it is a complete waste of time.
I get my a*se handed to me every single time I play Quake Live and I aint that bad at online shooters.
As for the 16 player cap, I doubt if anone can host that many players. I've hosted games of GTR Evolution with only 6 players on a very fast PC and 10MB cable connection, with 512MB upload, and everyone's ping was 80-100. All connected players were family and friends, all living within a 25 mile radius.
I also think that this is an attempt to charge PC gamers for DLC and patches. The 1.6 patch for COD4 that included 3 new multiplayer maps was paid for content on PS3 and Xbox 360. But free to PC gamers.
Now, if the only way to play MW2 is through there own portal, as it were, then that will be the only place to get patches and other DLC for the game.
So if they allowed dedicated servers, then players can choose to play on earlier versions of the game without the need to "buy" the "patches" from Activision.
And if they get away with it, then that will be the green light for all other developers to follow suit.
They could even go as far as charging monthly fees to be a member of their online portal and multiplayer will be pay to play.
I get my a*se handed to me every single time I play Quake Live and I aint that bad at online shooters.
As for the 16 player cap, I doubt if anone can host that many players. I've hosted games of GTR Evolution with only 6 players on a very fast PC and 10MB cable connection, with 512MB upload, and everyone's ping was 80-100. All connected players were family and friends, all living within a 25 mile radius.
I also think that this is an attempt to charge PC gamers for DLC and patches. The 1.6 patch for COD4 that included 3 new multiplayer maps was paid for content on PS3 and Xbox 360. But free to PC gamers.
Now, if the only way to play MW2 is through there own portal, as it were, then that will be the only place to get patches and other DLC for the game.
So if they allowed dedicated servers, then players can choose to play on earlier versions of the game without the need to "buy" the "patches" from Activision.
And if they get away with it, then that will be the green light for all other developers to follow suit.
They could even go as far as charging monthly fees to be a member of their online portal and multiplayer will be pay to play.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 1,348
- Location
- London
Quake Live's system can hardly be called match making. Well, what I should say is, I wouldn't exactly call a pointless difficulty rating under the server info and tutorial when you first start playing "match making". No matter how you scored or whatever against Crash, you can still choose to play in any old server you want.
Quake Live also has a server browser, and you can customise what type of game you want to play in the same kind of way as you can on CS:S, for example.
If MW2 used the same "guide" to skill as Quake Live with dedicated servers, it would be perfect. People could then choose a server that was rated a certain difficulty. The difficulty of a server could even change depending on the "skill level" of the players inside.
I can host 16 players fine with no lag, but not many people have fast connections.
I'd say one out of every ten matches I play on the 360 has noticable lag, so I have to adapt my playing style.
This will probable be true for the PC version too.
I'd say one out of every ten matches I play on the 360 has noticable lag, so I have to adapt my playing style.
This will probable be true for the PC version too.
This is news to me. I can almost understand charging for extra maps on consoles, but to tie them in to patches to force people to pay to update their game - surely that's wrong on the most base level? Patches are there to correct issues present on release - bug fixes, balances, what have you. It's addressing issues brought about by rush releases, or just things they missed. Paying for a game and then charging you to correct their mistakes - do console gamers really fall for that kind of crap? I own a 360, and of the few games (10 or so) I have on it, those that needed patching were patched automatically when I logged into that game after said patch had been released - I'm homing that wasn't just because I had a gold account at that time. It's not like they're even offering us the opportunity to match against those who insist pads are just as adequate for FPSs as K&M control and shooting them repeatedly in the head. There's absolutely nothing in that 402 response that makes me think there's a worthwhile trade-off for PC gamers, apart from those who, for whatever reason, are using their PC as a secondary console and wouldn't miss the advantages PC gaming offers.
If it really is based in p2p hosting that is pretty appalling, since:
1) Most players have relatively low upload, something around the 256-768kbit range usually, a bit more for LLU. During lots of action on small levels you'd struggle to host an 8 player game on that
2) Even when the host's upload isn't saturated, the latency for everyone but the host will be poor. A Dedicated server in London will give most people their base ping plus around 0-2ms. A Listen server hosted by a player will give everyone else their base ping, plus 0-2ms, plus whatever the base ping of the host is. That'll mean even in the best case scenarios around 10ms higher pings than normal, with the average probably being more like 25ms worse.
3) Servers will just get randomly shutdown in the middle of games.
As for charging for patches, it depends on what you call a patch really. These days game updates often contain as many enhancements as fixes, if they decouple the two then I don't see a problem with it.
1) Most players have relatively low upload, something around the 256-768kbit range usually, a bit more for LLU. During lots of action on small levels you'd struggle to host an 8 player game on that
2) Even when the host's upload isn't saturated, the latency for everyone but the host will be poor. A Dedicated server in London will give most people their base ping plus around 0-2ms. A Listen server hosted by a player will give everyone else their base ping, plus 0-2ms, plus whatever the base ping of the host is. That'll mean even in the best case scenarios around 10ms higher pings than normal, with the average probably being more like 25ms worse.
3) Servers will just get randomly shutdown in the middle of games.
As for charging for patches, it depends on what you call a patch really. These days game updates often contain as many enhancements as fixes, if they decouple the two then I don't see a problem with it.