Infinity Ward defends MW2's IWNet

By Tom Bramwell Published 21 October, 2009

"Biggest investment ever" for PC version.

Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling has sought to defend Modern Warfare 2's lack of dedicated server support on PC by explaining the alternative system, IWNet, in a bit more detail on his blog.

First, he reflected on his original comments in a podcast over the weekend, which revealed that Infinity Ward plans to replace the traditional clients-connecting-to-dedicated-servers model with something closer to Xbox Live or PSN, where players are paired up by matchmaking software for peer-hosted games.

"The news, by default, means no more browsing through a server list for a server with the settings/ping you want among other things, and sent shockwaves through the hardcore PC community, leading to many more questions than answers as to 'HOW' this would work, and if it would really be better for the PC community as a whole," he wrote.

"Questions, assumptions, and speculation I intend to dispel." Mmm.

The game is "the biggest investment Infinity Ward has ever made into the PC version", he wrote, and IWNet "takes the benefits of dedicated servers and allows them to be utilised 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".

There are four key components to this, apparently. The first is that the matchmaking software finds you the best possible game for your needs, based on skill, location and connection quality. "It will put you in the game that will give you the smoothest gameplay possible without you having to manually find a server with the best ping."

Point two is that you can have playlists and private matches, which allow you to run clan matches and seek out games with the parameters you desire. Point three is that there's a party system and friends list, which allows you to group up and communicate with your friends/clan and move together between games.

Point four is that IWNet utilises Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC) and doesn't distribute control of individual sessions to server operators, thus allowing the developer to keep a closer eye out for cheaters and hackers and hopefully stop them ruining your experience.

"All in all," wrote Bowling, "IWNet adds a load of new features that the PC version of our games have never had before and allows us an infrastructure to continue to update and improve on the game post-launch."

So will everyone now calm down and live happily ever after? Well, the obligatory angry petition is up to nearly 120,000 signatures, and Bowling's post is pretty much what people thought he meant in the podcast anyway, so we suspect not.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (95) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Caimbeul #1 3 years ago

    Doesnt sound like its a bad thing they are doing...whats all the fuss about?

  • freakzilla #2 3 years ago

    I doubt even Bowling likes what's happened. I can only think of one person who would do this kind thing and that's Bobby Kotick.

    I wonder how far they can push us before there's a backlash serious enough to do a significant amount of damage to Activision's profits.
    Edited by freakzilla at 21/10/09 @ 09:25

  • Concrete #3 3 years ago

    Amongst other things, the complete loss of community that comes from finding a server and playing on it regularly, the ability for moderators to deal with idiots, the option of installing modifications and (most likely) the ease of setting up specific matches, such as clan fixtures.

    I really do hope that this call came from Activision trying to combat piracy and IW had no real say, because otherwise someone in the design team has made a proper cock up IMO.

  • Fab4 #4 3 years ago

    "There are four key components to this, apparently. The first is that the matchmaking software finds you the best possible game for your needs, based on skill, location and connection quality. "It will put you in the game that will give you the smoothest gameplay possible without you having to manually find a server with the best ping."

    They're having a fucking laugh, arent they? They couldnt manage it for their console versions, what makes them think they can manage it for another platform?
    Edited by Fab4 at 21/10/09 @ 09:26

  • Xerx3s #5 3 years ago

    Too bad that all four points are actually utter rubbish and spin. Do they think that their community are ignorant?

  • b00n #6 3 years ago

    I don't want the software to chose the what it thinks is the best possible game for me based on all that location, connection and skill stuff.

    I want to CHOSE where, who, when and how I play. That's why I play on PC. Simple as that.
    Edited by b00n at 21/10/09 @ 09:35

  • rawburger #7 3 years ago

    Give us the choice, Infinity Ward.

    I do not require your "help" to find a server and rules that I and my mate's like to play.

  • Wickedbug #8 3 years ago

    He needs to take of his pink filtered glasses if he really believes that matchmaking is going to work like he's saying.

    Even if it does it's sitill worst then dedicated servers because you loose the sense of comunity that comes with playing with some regulars on a server.

    With matchmakinge everytime you want to play you roll the dice and pray for good ping, good players, etc. With server browsing you bookmark a couple servers you like and you're set for life.
    Edited by Wickedbug at 21/10/09 @ 09:50

  • local_celebrity #9 3 years ago

    Genuine question. Can someone please explain why Infinity Ward have done this? They seem to have alienated their entire PC fanbase, and I can't see any reason behind it. They're not charging for this IWNet (are they?)

  • davisorle #10 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • Fab4 #11 3 years ago

    i have a feeling its a combination of controlling piracy and cornering the market in additional content. No more free, community developed mods. You'll have to buy map packs like console users and Bobby Kotick will be so happy he'll reduce his daily intake of newborn babies to one.

  • mingster #12 3 years ago

    Its all done as a way of stopping piracy.
    You won't be able to play online with a cracked version.

  • Mooglepies #13 3 years ago

    If this was something you were so proud of you'd have told us months ago instead of weeks before release.

    What amuses me most is they said they didn't want IWnet AND dedicated servers so as not to split the community. I hate to break it to you guys, but...

  • KinanEldari #14 3 years ago

    As far as I know, the Call of Duty games are mostly played online. By people who actually know what they're doing or people willing to learn. What's happening now is IW or Activision (probably the latter) are trying to sell this game to as many people as possible by making entering a game with people your skill supposedly easier.

    I suspect the following things will happen
    - As stated before, high ranked players will still abuse this system.
    - There will be hundreds upon hundreds of newbies that have never even heard of the terms "FPS", "Shooter" or possibly even "video game" before. They will whine, nag, complain and nag some more because they can't seem to kill anything. Mainly because their lack of skill. Which brings me to my next point
    - How is matching people up with people of approximately their skill level ever going to make them improve? It's like giving someone the same sudoku puzzle a hundred times. After a while they'll remember the puzzle, but if they never get a new one, they won't get any better at it.
    - and possibly in the end, because of the constant stream of nagging, there will be one supergun in the game that will kill anything with one shot and practically aims and pulls the trigger for you because of some hyperadvanced robotic system that is nothing more but an aimbot. This probably won't happen, but I'm sure you get the idea.

    But hey, again it's all about the size of your wallet and the number of newbies and casual players still is a lot bigger than the number of people who actually got a clue what's going on. This IW.Net thing? One big heap of steaming marketing dung.
    Edited by KinanEldari at 21/10/09 @ 10:04

  • kallenai #15 3 years ago

    A wild shot in the dark on IW's decision in regard to the PC version, focus on the console market and making big money?

    You dish up a console ported PC version, but cut the longevity of the game and community base with no mod support or dedicated servers. Focus on milking the franchise with DLC and give it 6 month's before hyping the spin machine for the next MW sequal in the money train.

    With a lack of dedicated servers and support for Mod's you cut the longevity of the game to your PC market, making those that do buy it more interested in buying the next sequel in the series. That's why so many developers who made their name in the PC development market now focus on console gaming development, it's easier to churn out games and sequels in the knowledge that the longevity of games if purely based on cash based DLC rather than community based modding that is a major point of much of the PC gaming scene.

    It's a great shame that IW has such a short term memory, it was the PC market and gamers that made you successful in the first place, now you turn on your major game purchaser and give them a clip round the ear, sensible not.

  • Dave797 #16 3 years ago

    Totally gutted about this the best thing about COD4 for me when alot of the cheats and hacks started to become common place was the "Dedicated Server" me and my mates played on. No idiots, no cheats and no lag.

    Regardless of whether we can group together and jump between games or not we'll still be lumped in with every Tom, Dick and Harry who for the majority we dont want to play with or against.

    The fact is we should have a choice in the matter and as good as they may profess IWNet is there will be more problems with it that they'll know what to do with. It isn't even perfect on the PS3 or Xbox so what makes them think a clean launch on a new and infinetly more vaired platform will go off without a hitch??

    Simple answer it wont!

  • Zomoniac #17 3 years ago

    I wonder how far they can push us before there's a backlash serious enough to do a significant amount of damage to Activision's profits.

    A damn sight farther than this. You really think more than 1% of the 15 million people who bought MW have ever even heard of a dedicated server?

  • Zomoniac #18 3 years ago

    Genuine question. Can someone please explain why Infinity Ward have done this? They seem to have alienated their entire PC fanbase, and I can't see any reason behind it.

    I will bet everything I ever have that the reason IW have done it is because Activision made them. Why Activision did it is probably down to controlling user behaviour, but I doubt IW themselves are to blame for this fiasco.

    How long before Kotick's "work in fear" attitude makes all the talent at IW walk out? Not that it would matter, given almost as many people buy Treyarch's bags of wank since most gamers are idiots who don't know what a good game is. But surely if he keeps up his regime he's going to be losing all his decent developers very soon?

  • gjgjg #19 3 years ago

    ...off to sign the petition a second time to 'dispel' this 'responce'. god damn acti-greed

  • sneetch #20 3 years ago

    On a largely unrelated note, the layering of this IWNet over Steam (for VAC) seems strange, like DOW2 requiring Steam and Windows Live. That was something that I was - and still am - surprised that Valve allowed (it's basically IW hoping to "import" the Steam community, IMO). Why give the community you built up over half a decade to a future competitor? Makes no sense to me unless of course IWNet isn't another Steam/Xbox Live/PSN in the making?

    Either way I think we all know that these (the dedicated servers) are the droids we're looking for and while this may turn out to be the bestest system evar I'll remain incredibly sceptical of their ability to deliver a system that does what they claim this will.

  • Zomoniac #21 3 years ago

    Yes, i think they sold more than 150,000 copies on the PC so its highly likely that more than 1% of the people who bought the game know about dedicated servers.

    I'm still not convinced. I bet most people playing it on PC, if they even play multiplayer at all, will just open a list of games and join one. They won't know the technicalities.

  • fizzyfish #22 3 years ago

    As rawburger said, I'd simply prefer the choice. Is there any technical reason why both IWNet and the usual approach can't both be available to the user?

  • skillian #23 3 years ago

    @Zomaniac

    I really don't think that's true. The very nature of the server list means that players have to think about choosing a server to play on, and only a few games in you start to recognise servers you've enjoyed before and adding them to your favourites.

    A dedicated server is not a technical or complicated concept to grasp.

  • local_celebrity #24 3 years ago

    I bet someone hacks, then leaks, a cracked version that'll allow people to play the way they want.

    Result - even more piracy! Well played, Activision.

  • Xerx3s #25 3 years ago

    @local_celebrity :

    Yup, that's my guess as well.

  • Fab4 #26 3 years ago

    Might be quite a bit of work to 'hack it' as it looks like IW have basically implemented a matchmaking overlay which isnt part of the disc contents.

  • oreillymj #27 3 years ago

    120,000 is probably more then the number of copies the game will sell on PC.

  • frags81 #28 3 years ago

    Why would they want to restrict the flexibility of the PC platform for a dumbed down match making system? This will kill all the community run server and mod servers. I think PC gamers in general don't want their PC's turned into a console thank you very much.

  • JahB #29 3 years ago

    Genuine question. Can someone please explain why Infinity Ward have done this?

    i did the last time this was discussed, but all i got was massive negs.

    really simple: a proprietary match making service allows Ubisoft/IW to

    a) easily ban anybody that is playing a pirated copy
    b) establish a monopoly on downloadable maps($$$), since mods/special servers/etc won't be an option

  • paketep #30 3 years ago

    That's not a defense, that's a "we IW are right, fuck you if you don't agree".

  • BritishBlue1 #31 3 years ago

    "The biggest investment Infinity Ward has ever made into the PC version" and their own profitability. To be honest I don't think IW have a say anymore, Activision own them and have spotted a nice little earner. The best thing, from their point of view, is that they will get away with this; the one's who care, are powerless, the one's with power, couldn't care less.

  • Skinme #32 3 years ago

    I have a really bad feeling Activision are using this as a stepping stone for subscription based multiplayer. Before the -ve come flying in let me try and explain why I think this is the case....

    From where I'm sitting, it looks to me that Activision are using this system to remove ALL private servers. Matchmaking is simply an interim to allow people to use multiplayer until they can get private servers set up. Which, of course, they'll charge for.

    I can just see the PR crap they'll be spouting next year, something along the lines of "Matchmaking is a free system open to all and provides an excellent service for the majority of gamers. However, for our hardcore fan base who wish to have the versatility of dedicated servers, they can enjoy this service too from Acitivision for the small sum of just $10/€9/£8 a month"

    I could be completely wrong of course, this is just an opinion after all. But in the current climate of squeezing as much money from gamers as possible, this appears to be the next logical step.

  • cianchristopher #33 3 years ago

    @JahB: why do you keep trying to implicate Ubisoft in this scandal! Last time I chaecked they had nothing to do with the Call of Duty franchise!

  • Masterless #34 3 years ago

    Do we need to set up a new petition now that says exactly what is said before. Thats pretty much all this douchebag has done. We understood that before and we don't want it.

    If we complain again will he say it in a different way and expect us to lap it up?

    "The force is not strong with you, restrict to play where we want we will" (err that was yoda...)

    Screw MW2, I'm playing Jedi Knights!

  • Spekingur #35 3 years ago

    I'll probably buy the game. Mostly because I really want to play Modern Warfare 2. I do not, however, support this multiplayer BS they are offering us. It's just the same thing as with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. All are under Activision's control - it's their take on trying to succeed but possibly just destroying a franchise because of pushing requirements upon people that don't want them. I guess they are the new gaming-Nazis.

    [edit]
    Oh and donnie. You are on a PC right now, aren't you? Which means you are part of the largest social network available, the internet - which, incidently, was first available to the common people on the PC. Stop trolling and start making some sense, boy. Either that or go back under your bridge.
    Edited by Spekingur at 21/10/09 @ 11:53

  • Xerx3s #36 3 years ago

    "Might be quite a bit of work to 'hack it' as it looks like IW have basically implemented a matchmaking overlay which isnt part of the disc contents."

    Ah but you are talking about a massive army of people who are A) Highly motivated, B) Highly skilled & C) Always one step ahead of the people making countermeasures. It's not a problem, it's a challenge.

  • TeaFiend #37 3 years ago

    So, it essentially matches people up with bias on skill rather than letting high skilled people join servers set up for newbies? I can see why you are all moaning. I would moan too if I was not allowed to go on a server with unskilled people to make them all quit the server through frustration. What a terrible change!
    Edited by TeaFiend at 21/10/09 @ 12:11

  • Masterless #38 3 years ago

    As someone already mentioned if groups of people are allowed to join a server regardless of their skills lvls (one may be lvl1, another lvl60) the skill levels and supposed matchmaking will already be broken.

    Matchmaking may be an ideal but it can never work. Someone new starting the game 2 months after release will still be classed as shit but could be gods gift at FPSs. If it can never work stop enforcing it on people that quite clearly obviously don't want it.

    @Tea - Its not like WoW where you could purposefully stay at like lvl 39 in pvp just to "own" everyone, if you starting killing noobs all day long you will quickly level up and leave them behind.

  • TeaFiend #39 3 years ago

    @Masterless:
    re-read. Previous setup was you could join someones "Newbie Only Server" and kill all day long. Now with matchmaking people will rank up and when put into matches with similar skills. Same for your post, if they are good they will rank up quickly and be put into higher ranked games. Hence WoW adding XP for PvP games, to get people out of those tiers and into new ones.

  • TeaFiend #40 3 years ago

    As it is through steam, doesn't your CD key get registered for your account? Meaning you cannot create new accounts with the same CD key? Not played a new PC game in a while, going from memory of some older ones here.

  • skillian #41 3 years ago

    Previous setup was you could join someones "Newbie Only Server" and kill all day long.

    Any good "newbies only" server would have admins and moderators to enforce it.

    That's the trouble here. The PC community have people who dedicate time and money to running an enjoyable server, people who will tweak and customise those servers to appeal to the players that come to visit.

    Now IW/Acti have ditched that whole concept of fans (real people!) tending to their servers and audience, along with the sense of community that comes with joining your favourite server to find the people you played with last night, in favour of an algorithm.

    The whole thing is about removing any form of control from the public and putting all the power in the hands of Activision, who get to dictate how you'll play and who you'll play with. Good for Acti, any (non-gaming) businessman would agree, but the complete antithesis of everything PC gaming is about.

    THEY JUST DON'T GET IT, and this is what people mean when they say Infinity Ward is now aconsole developer through and through.

  • Freek #42 3 years ago

    I think this could hurt the sales of the PC version. That's a more hardcore audience who like community, custom settings and mods that come with the dedicated server model.

    The more casual crowd buys the console version.

  • Mooglepies #43 3 years ago

    What I'm going to miss most is ingratiating myself into a clan's public server, getting to know people and forming lasting online rivalries/friendships.

    An awesome example is a public server that my friends and I play on; there's this one, fairly awesome guy named Axl who loves sniping. Every time we go on the server he's there, every time we get killed by him from across the map it's "Oh, that Axl, what a card" and you get a feeling of persistence and community. I know that Axl has an R700 with Blue Tiger camo and a n AK74-u with a red dot sight; I know that he gets himself entrenched and then refuses to move until he's the LAST member of his team alive. I've never really spoken to the people there, they're not on my friends list, and yet I know them all and how they play intimately.

    How the hell am I supposed to do that now? I've got no problem with people developing on PC and console but they really need to take into account that the PC community and the console community have different wants and different playstyles.

    IWnet on consoles is an extremely good idea because a lot of the time what happens is you have a group of people that know each other forming a party and looking for a game to play with each other in; it's very friendslist-centric, and matchmaking suits it very well. On PC however, you don't need that sort of infrastructure in place; there are different group dynamics, different motivations for playing. It's not that one approach is better or worse, it's just tailoring the system to fit the audience rather than the other way round; isn't this logical?

    Colour me paranoid (and I likely am) but it smacks of the kind of corporate decision that a publisher would make rather than the developer. The piracy argument doesn't even make sense, given that it'll be tied to Steam which, while piratable, isn't nearly as easy as most other platforms; my only conclusion is that it's just a way of controlling the content that feeds the game - they can make you buy map packs and DLC without the hassle of people beating them to the punch.

  • Buran #44 3 years ago

    Without the infrastructure of near to 15.000 dedicated servers that COD 4 has, and without the community support and founding, the MW 2 online "p2p hosting matchmaking" will be a epic fiasco. The mass dessertion thread from clans in the IW forums is cataclysmic:

    [link url=http://www.infinityward.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=125310&start=300
    ]http://www.infinityward.com/forum/viewto...[/link]

    Also, is very probably that a few weeks after the launcship most of the maps, weapons and perks in MW 2 will be hacked ant ported to COD 4 custom servers, making the game useless.

    Matchmaking can work in 2-8 players rts, but in the fps online scene, dedicated servers and mods is the way since Quake times. IW is deeply wrong here, and deserves the failure they will harvest.

  • steviepunk #45 3 years ago

    While the matchmaking features they are adding is fine, they should not be removing the tried and tested dedicated server options.

    Anyway, a petition is not really going to cut it, the only language that Activision understand is money - the only way you'll get their attention is to cancel your pre-orders. You can bet they will think twice if they quickly lose 10+% of their pre-orders.

  • skillian #46 3 years ago

    @Mooglepies

    Said what I wanted to say but better. +1

    I am sure Infinity Ward know this (how could they not, they all played on PC once), but unfortunately we they are now in a position where they would never be able to admit it. They will have to talk up the positives of the system, while privately I'm sure they all realise what a disappointment this is.

  • Fab4 #47 3 years ago

    i wish everyone would stop calling what they will implement p2p. Its not. Its replacing a dedicated, highly-speced server with the PC of someone who is also actually playing the game. Its still a client/server model. The only way you could remotely call it peer to peer is that you are connecting to someone with a similarly speced PC to yourself, i.e one of your peers.

  • b00n #48 3 years ago

    Mooglepies: totally agree with you. They should look at how the fanbase is playing, and deliver them what they want. And not start from 'What does Activision want to maximize current and future profit' and then enfore that upon gamers, selling them a BS story on how they know what's good for them.

  • actionfitz #49 3 years ago

    PC folks paying for DLC, No more User made Mods...
    You know when you've been 'Koticked'!
    :[

  • actionfitz #50 3 years ago

    ROFL.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMd0vHYlb4

  • Xeaon #51 3 years ago

    It's a shame this boycott probally won't do anything as i guess most people will still buy it anyway (or pirate it :/). Really hate the direction pc gaming's going now.

  • JahB #52 3 years ago

    @b00n

    the problem with that is that the 200k pissed off hardcore pc gamers that won't buy the game are not "the fanbase". next to the 15 million the game will rack up in sales on consoles, the sales of the pc port (i feel dirty typing this) don't matter much.

    as fucked up as it sounds (5 years ago it would have been laughable to say this), Call Of Duty is a console franchise now. most likely because the money made on pc games is peanuts compared to a succesful multiplat console game, leave alone a game that sells like modern warfare.

  • Fab4 #53 3 years ago

    Then perhaps console users should take heed as to how Activison treat their 'base' customers over an extended period of time. Tell them to fuck off early, maybe they'll start listening.

  • JahB #54 3 years ago

    @Fab4

    i wish it worked like that, but i think it's gonna go like the EA of old. Acti will milk it for what they can, churning out sequel after sequel until the sales drop because they oversaturated the market (guitar hero anybody).

    after the sales drop they'll hire somebody like riccitello and the "evil empire of video games" will move on to another publisher. sad but true

  • JahB #55 3 years ago

    @Milky

    never gonna happen. shareholders listen to the board of directors, not to online petitions. and i guarantee you, the board has ample arguments to sell IWnet to shareholders - e.g. "it's much easier to squeeze cash for DLC maps from PC gamers now!" would probably work very well.

    also, 200k copies sold is nowhere close to 12 million for a publisher/dev; given the PC RRP, it's probably closer to 4-5 million, which is a lot cheaper than ripping out IWnet and re-doing the entire MP structure and the menus.

  • Skurmedel #56 3 years ago

    I remember CoD 4 on the XBox... sometimes the "skill based teams" worked well, most of the time it ballsed it up. It was not rare for me to be put on an almost exclusively american "server" as well, which meant "yellow ping" and the session being completely unplayable. They might get it to work better, but still, if people are happy with dedicated servers, why just no go with that? And as someone above me said, they could just add matchmaking on top of that. Isn't that how L4D works now?
    Edited by Skurmedel at 21/10/09 @ 15:00

  • JahB #57 3 years ago

    @milky

    i wish i could agree with you and hope that they don't go through with that. but the problem is, no matter how you look at it: yes, IWnet sucks massively for the PC community, but in terms of business (and from the pub/dev side) it makes perfect sense. do you really think Acti/IW would have developed and implemented this feature (knowing full well how the community would react, it's not like this backlash wasn't foreseeable) if it wasn't massively beneficial for them?

    your sales point is half-correct though, it's 12 million lost in sales, but again, this doesn't matter to shareholders - they only care about their own bottom line, so retail margins (same for online distribution), shipping, handling, manufacturing and packaging won't even begin to factor into their decisions.

  • General_Zod #58 3 years ago

    I hope everyone at Infinity Ward dies of aids.

  • skillian #59 3 years ago

    Well I've signed the petition and won't be buying it, but I think JahB's right that they honestly don't really care.

    The amount of lost revenue from this controversy will be relatively small, and Activision will see that hit as worth taking in order to set up a long-term system that will give them more control over the PC market and bring in revenue from maps, DLC etc.

    They will do a little damage limitation with words, but nothing will change now no matter how loud the PC community shouts.

  • Spekingur #60 3 years ago

    This is just exactly what happens when suits run the gaming world rather than gamers/game creators.
    It's almost in the same area as giving horses and rats an ruling role in government.

  • dr_faulk #61 3 years ago

    I went back and played CS:Source for the first time in a few years, and I remembered why I got away from online PC gaming: shitheads with shitty, over-loaded servers forcing you to download the same Unreal Tournament soundset... man, stop wasting my time. I just want to jump in and play.

    In saying that, that's why I'd play the game on Xbox Live. I'm sure plenty of other people prefer the 'choice' in typical online PC FPSs.

  • JahB #62 3 years ago

    @Milky

    i +1'd that post for the idealism alone, respect.

  • skillian #63 3 years ago

    @dr_faulk

    Well, that's why you find a couple of servers you like and keep going back there. Which is not possible in MW2.

  • sneetch #64 3 years ago

    @skillian

    Yep, that's pretty much what I do too.

  • dr_faulk #65 3 years ago

    @skillian @sneetch

    .... oh yeah. Jeez, I forgot about that. There's even a favourites tab in CS:Source. Oh f*** me. Fine, yes, this is all a disaster, then.

  • Nephirion #66 3 years ago

    So ... nothing to do with piracy then?

  • Bazfrag #67 3 years ago

    Nope its all about them selling dlc :/

    If Valve pulled this shit with Cs2, I would have to go shotgun postal.
    Edited by Bazfrag at 21/10/09 @ 17:38

  • Machiavellian #68 3 years ago

    Actually I believe it has everything to do with Piracy but IW/Activision are being cagey. Bringing a game out on the PC is extremely risky especially if you have one of the most highly pirated games to date. Remember when IW posted about how much their game was pirated. Not only that but there were over a million people on their servers using a Pirate copy of the software compared to only a couple 100,000 legit copies. Interesting enough when those numbers were brought out, PC gamers continue to turn a blind eye to the facts.

    There were so many excuses you would have thought you were in a Catholic Church. I was only deming it. I don't like the series anyway so I never would have bought it. The Single Player is so short not worth my money etc etc etc.

    When you have a user base that pirate your game more than actually purchasing it, changes are going to be made. The reason I believe that IW does use the P word is because of the same things I continue to read in these threads. PC gamers still do not get it. PC gamers will continue to defend the pirates stating that piracy has no inpact on game sells.

    I believe this is just the first step. You can believe there will be a online registration and verification coming. Also lets be honest, the COD series has never really been all that hardcore. Since the majority of money is made from the consoles, the small but vocal group where dedicated servers are a big deal isn't enough to make IW/Activision blink.

  • Bazfrag #69 3 years ago

    I don't mind registering. I do mind not being not being able to choose a low ping server from a list of thousands, with more free maps and game types. How do dedicated servers and server lists link with piracy?

  • Spekingur #70 3 years ago

    It's not because of piracy - not solely. It's about control. It's always about control, if you can control people you can make them do anything.

  • Machiavellian #71 3 years ago

    I would believe its the same way pirates allow for Steam games to be played online. With LAN and dedicated servers, you can modify the .exe to use those pirate servers instead of the servers that go through Steam.

    If you take away the ability to play LAN or dedicated servers, now the only way you can play online is through IW.net. IW will definitely be able to tell legit copies from cracked copies and roll out the ban hammer. This is the reason I believe they will not do matchmaking and dedicated servers together. IW wants to control everything and they probably feel that most PC gamers (casual of course) will not notice the difference.

    I do agree that it's not totally due to piracy, but I believe piracy gave them more incentive to take control on how their game is played on the PC considering how badly pirated MW1. IW is well aware of how badly this decision would be met but they do have the numbers to show that Piracy of their last game was so bad that they need to take control of how their game is played on the PC or continue to be abused by the user base. Better to lose some legit users who are the minority compared to the amount of people who pirated your software.
    Edited by Machiavellian at 21/10/09 @ 18:26

  • Climhazzard #72 3 years ago

    this news would make me personally more likely to buy this for pc as i honestly cannot be bothered to trawl through server after server, i jus wanna choose a gametype and get straight into a game thats why i stopped playing cs:s after just a few days spend more time trying to find a decent server. so what if the connection doesnt turn out quite perfect its still an enjoyable experience.
    if you already play regular with friends online just play private matches surely its just the same as being on your own server? (probably be corrected on that one)

  • VMerken #73 3 years ago

    Welcome to the wonderful world of DRM, where you do not get to own anything. I see online gaming is now also being introduced to some "interesting" business models as well. And as with Bioshock at the day, this is done using a high profile title, knowing that gamers are probably going to bite the bitter pill in order to play some triple A.

    It's good to see this awareness come up and on a related note, I hope some of you will take a moment to read the EULA that came with the Dragon Age character editor (I wish I could quote a few examples but after reading it, I clicked on "Cancel", deleted the game, went to the recycle bin and purged the darn thing outta there). Some parts made my jaw drop - as Spekingur wrote, it's all about control.
    Edited by VMerken at 21/10/09 @ 19:54

  • Machiavellian #74 3 years ago

    Lets be honest with ourselves, in a world where things are open people will take advantage of it. There always seems to be more people who take advantage of a situation then the one who doesn't. PC gamers have shone that with ease of piracy, that they will take the immoral route. The problem I see is that PC gamers do not recognize that they need to take responsibility for how things have come to this point. It's easy to blame Activision for this action and it's even easier to blame them for wanting to take control of their game and make money. Yes those are reasons this decision was made but the decision was made much easier by the greed of PC gamers today.

    What I would like to ask some people here is, if MW1 was only a PC game and IW was a developer under their own roof, would they still be in business today. The numbers are there for COD4 and how it ws the most pirated game on the PC. How with an open system, Pirated version of the software was played 3 to 4 time more than a legit copy. There was more than 1 million people downloading the game a week. I do not believe the game sold over 200,00 copies on the PC. Lets be honest, those are appalling numbers. You work hard to bring out a game and you see those numbers and your heart sink. You start to believe that everyone on the PC is immoral and greedy.

    Right now Valve is the new darling because they have not gone this route but wait until their games are more pirated then legit copies and you will see a change. Interesting people state that Steam stops piracy but when I look, TF2 is up there pretty strong and their are pirate servers out their running. Do not be surprise when Half Life 3 comes out and Valve has removed dedicated servers as well.

  • Bazfrag #75 3 years ago

    +1 @ Mac. Always well written posts dude. (unlike this one)

  • General_Zod #76 3 years ago

    @Mac

    Complete and utter turd I am afraid, this has nothing to do with piracy and all to do with controlling DLC. You ask what would happen to IW if they were just a PC developer how the hell do you think they got to where they are now? I promise it was just as easy to pirate COD1 than it was COD4 and yet here they are today. They are doing this to make sure they squeeze out a few extra quid out of PC users just as they do with XBox and PS3 users by charging £10 for a map pack. They claim they are worried about pirates yet they make a decision that will ensure even more people pirate the game just so they can get at the single player so they do not have to deal with the crappy multiplayer. Does not make much sense to me.

  • Pablo2k5 #77 3 years ago

    This is gonna hit sales hard, might have to pirate this just to spite the fuckers. (I never pirate)
    Edited by Pablo2k5 at 21/10/09 @ 21:54

  • Machiavellian #78 3 years ago

    @General_Zod
    I know exactly how IW has reached their position but past success doesn't equal future returns all the time. Can you state that IW could survive now on the PC platform and produce the games they do when people pirate their game more than it is purchased. Today's PC market is really looking grim for any PC developer, especially if you are a high profile developer like IW.

    The ease of pirating games on the PC has always been easy. Telling my age, I can go back as far as the Vic 20 and Commodore 64 where you had to log onto BBS and download your crack file to play your copied Floppy from you friend.

    It's not just the fact that pirating is easy, it's the fact that it has become fashion to do it on the PC. I have seen where some gamers will look at you like you are crazy if you tell them you bought a game on the PC. When my 12 year old Son knows how to do it and he barely touches the PC, I know that pirating on the PC has reached a new level. What has changed since COD1 and 2 and today is that Pirating on the PC has become mainstream. The tool I love the most but also is a two edge sword which is bit torrent has made it so easy and so prevalent for anyone to get any piece of content they want on the PC has also made pirating what it is today.

    Just looking at things from a pure business point of view. It makes all the sense in the world for IW/Activision to go this route. Once they have their PC community hooked on IWNET, then they will move over to online registration of your game. Next will be Online only play where you can only play the game if you are signed online to IWNET. Following the Online only play will be the hammer that nails you nice and tight into IW box which would be to have code that only runs on their server for Single Player and multiplayer. In other words there will not be anyway to pirate the game because code will be missing where only the server can provide through your internet connection. This will be coming probably in the next few years so PC gamers get ready.
    Edited by Machiavellian at 21/10/09 @ 22:04

  • hiddenranbir #79 3 years ago

    Doesn't this depend on having good uploading bandwidth between EVERYONE if this game will be P2P?

  • Spekingur #80 3 years ago

    CoD2 (developed by IW) was highly pirated. I know people that pirated CoD4 but ended up buying it so they could play online without hassle. So making pirating out as the sole "bad guy" with IWnet is just... wrong. Some games wouldn't even exist if the pirating hadn't been possible (although - it wasn't called pirating in the olden days).
    People forget that it's a tool, that publishers haven't just gotten the hang of using in a proper way - even tv stations have been rumoured to leak pre-airs of new shows just to gauge the reception the show might get.

  • JensonJet #81 3 years ago

    DRM exists partly because of pirates. It's strange that some PC gamers complain about developers and publishers when the real blame falls on fellow gamers. Some of which openly admit on forums that they do this. PC gamers should be jumping down their throats for this. I guess this says a lot about the attitude of most PC owners. When the day comes that well-known, big developers or publishers start to announce that they're no longer supporting the PC then every single pirate can proudly say they helped bring about that day, they were partly responsible. Pirating will ultimately have a bigger impact than the recent trend of online petitions.

  • Machiavellian #82 3 years ago

    @Spekingur
    You just made my point even clearer. You say you know people who bought COD4 because it was a HASSEL to play the game online using the Pirate version. Think about what you have just said and you see that IW decision is a direct result of piracy. No it’s not the only reason but it’s definitely one of the top two. You also mentioned how heavy COD 1/2 was pirated but that also proves my point. After getting your game pirated like its freeware, you get to the point where you decide to take action. One of the big problems with PC gamers is that they look at the situation in a one dimensional way.

    You are right that Pirating is nothing new. What is new is how mainstream it is now.
    It's not that Pirating hurts a company bottom line but instead think about how the attitude of people who pirate a game changes the way they think about software period. You only have to read the thread on different sites to see how people look at pirating. IW will not provide dedicated servers on the PC, I will just pirate your game. Most of you who are angry about IW decision ask yourself weather or not you will pirate the game to either show IW the error of there ways or you will just pirate the game because you can.

    Remember that IW games are pirated on the PC more than it is purchase. I guess PC gamers cannot understand how truly terrible this is. It’s that ME mentality where you believe you did IW a favor by purchasing their product because it was a hassle to play their game online with a pirate copy of the game.

    What I really want to know is what PC gamers expected to happen. Do you really think developers and publishers will continue to turn a blind eye to what is becoming an epidemic? A half assed solution would be to have matchmaking and dedicated servers. Keeping the dedicated servers still leaves the door open and if you want to completely shut the door, you best be prepared to go all the way.

  • bgtpcg #83 3 years ago

    All that still doesn't give me low ping servers without host advantage. And the piracy reason for this is bullshit. Yes, there were a lot of pirates, but most of them would never buy anything anyway, just like they won't buy this game either, this won't magically turn those pirated copies into real ones, but it will definitely make lots of legit customers put their money towards Borderlands, L4D2, or Bad Company 2 instead.

    There is no reason not to have both solutions, other than them knowing their system is inferior to dedicated servers, and nobody would use it.

  • Machiavellian #84 3 years ago

    Now they are using steam, that in itself is enough to stop the majority of pirates and if they have that + checking of Keys it would be ok. There is no need to remove dedicated servers to combat piracy and it is , yet again, only an excuse.

    People keep using steam as a model but Steam has not stopped piracy. Not only has Steam not stop piracy it hasn't stopped people playing multiplayer on online servers. Yes it's more inconvenient for people to go that route but still its only a band aid. The fact is that taking out LAN and dedicated servers will pretty much kill online play for pirated games. Even still, you are only looking at the now and you need to look at the bigger picture. This is just the first step to a more controlled environment that is coming soon. Once dedicated servers are killed and people get comfortable with that. Activision will then make it so that you cannot play their games unless you are online and they probably will throw another wrinkle where the game needs pieces of code from the IWNET in order to work period. Once that happens, it will be pretty damn tough for even the single player game to be pirated. What PC gamers are missing is that this probably something that was planned in steps and nothing some knee jerk reaction to piracy or controlling DLC. I am sure controlling content to Activision games was a bonus and probably something that was used to show the benefits of this move but it's just one of many things that probably was considered.

    I feel i should also stress that 1 pirated copy != to 1 sale. A lot of the pirates will download it because they can, they never intended to buy it in the first place. But there are a bunch of people who will buy the game after they pirate it, because they like it!

    This means nothing. This is an old tired excuse people have used time and again to ignore the problem. No a pirated copy does not equal a sell but the point is that that 1 pirated copy equals to someone taking advantage of a lot of hardware work, resource, money and a host of other things that also matter. This is that one dimensional thinking I was talking about. PC gamers try to limit the responsibility to just one area but instead piracy affects are much broader.

    I like to think of piracy like crime in your neighborhood. Lets say you live in a neighborhood where crime is prevalent. You might never experience any crime against you or your friends but because of the crime, you find that prices are higher at stores, property value plummet and business either move or fortify so much its like going into a police station. The correlation here is that the affect of piracy is the same as the affect of crime within a neighborhood. Just because it does not directly affect you, it's impact is felt everywhere.

  • Machiavellian #85 3 years ago

    @semitope
    What you are not understanding is that only on the PC has piracy gotten so bad that games SELL worst then the pirated games are downloaded. Look at the PSP, which is reaching the same level of piracy as the PC. Look at the steps Sony has made to kill it. Think about the steps Sony will make with the PSP2 to prevent piracy. Even better think about your argument. Just because piracy exist on other system do not mean that developer, publishers and OEMs are not working hard to solve that problem. Right now the Wii, 360 sell way more than their games are pirated. Developers make enough money where they do not have to think about abandoning the platform like some have said about the PSP.

    Developers have simply given PC gamers the shaft because they dont like not having the control and most gamers are more into consoles for their gaming needs (easier).

    This is where you are wrong. Developer have gone console BECAUSE of PC piracy not because it is easier. Developers who use to be only PC or majority PC like Valve, Bioware, ID, Epic, crytek etc. All have changed their stance on consoles because of how bad piracy is on the PC. ID who use to primarily code only for the PC has changed their development where the consoles are now more important instead of the PC. Epic, Valve and Crytek have also changed their development as well. You continue to believe that Piracy does not have an affect on developers but you ignore the signs that are right in your face.

    Why do you think so many PC developers are flocking to the console. Could it possibley be that they can make MONEY on consoles and have lower pirated software??

    Believe me ppl will crack codmw2 if they want. It will likely end with some emulation being used to mimick iwnet and rampant piracy of the game because of this move.

    Yes, MW2 will be cracked. IWNET at this point in time will not eliminate MW2 from being cracked but if you only look at the now then you would think this is just the only thing IW/Activision has in mind. The key is that in a few years, weather PC gamers like it or not, Activision will make it so that crackers will have to sell pirated games because it will take such a massive undertaking to properly crack PC games and provide any type of multiplayer. Stop looking at today as if time and people stay still and think about where this is all going.

  • General_Zod #86 3 years ago

    @Mac

    When will people learn that companies who go towards console gaming are not doing so because of piracy. For example lets pretend I am a developer, I make profit from the PC when I release my game, I soon realise that I can make more profit if I release games on consoles as well. Eureka!!!!!!!

    Simple equation: Profit from PC < Profit from PC + Consoles

    Simple business, why release your game on one platform when you can release your game on many platforms and make more money?

    Look at The Witcher devlelopers, they sold over a million copies on the PC and that made them alot of profit. They now realise they can release the Witcher 2 on consoles as well and make even more money. Nothing to do with piracy.

  • Machiavellian #87 3 years ago

    @General_Zod
    Why would stout PC developers who started their careers on the PC, who have also help to shape the technology of PC gaming change their environment where Consoles are the main platform. Is money a reason!!!! YES but that's due to the decline in making money on the PC. SO can you tell me what has changed where PC developers cannot make enough money on the platform they love but instead have to go to an alien controlled platform where they have to pay an OEM to even get their games on that system. Where they cannot define the technical aspect of their software but must conform to the OEM tight rules and limitations. Could it possible be that the buying public on the PC is now smaller for PC developers. What do you think is causing this sudden drop where PC developers HAVE to develop on consoles in order to survive. Cause and effect, your are demeaning the cause because you truly do not understand it's affect.

    Just because a game sells a decent amount on the PC you believe this is the sole reason they move to a console. Could it be that the Witcher sold a million but was pirated 4 million.Maybe the developer who would like to make a bigger better game, which would mean more people using more resource probably think that if they could cut down on having their game pirated they can get a better return on their work do more.

    Ohhh, I know, you are a PC gamer and you believe that a developer should be happy they sold a million copies of their game anything more would be greedy. So it's alright that people pirated their game because they sold a million. What happens with the next game and they also sell a million but the game is pirated 2 million. What happens when the 3rd game which is better than the first two and they sell a million but the game get pirated 4 million. When does it start to become a problem. When do you think a developer who have people that have lives and would like to make a decent return for their work start to feel cheated themselves.
    Edited by Machiavellian at 22/10/09 @ 16:03

  • General_Zod #88 3 years ago

    ARGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Its not about that they cant make enough money on the PC version its that they can make even more money by selling it on more platforms, I hope you never decide to run a business yourself as you fail to grasp the notion of expanding your business to a bigger audience.

    You are a dumbass, please show in my post where I said they should have only sold a million. The Witcher was a niche RPG title and the only reason they could make it was due to the fact that the PC is an open platform and would not have been able to afford the licensing costs to develop on the PS3 or 360 and yes they were probably damn happy it sold a million. They are going to put Witcher 2 on consoles as well because hey they can make even more money by doing so its a concept so simple I cant believe you cant grasp it. Also where did I say it was alright to pirate games? Also please tell me which platform generates the most of Activisions revenue (hint: its not consoles)?

    If no one ever pirated a game on the PC we would be in exactly the same situation we are now.

  • Machiavellian #89 3 years ago

    You are a dumbass, please show in my post where I said they should have only sold a million. The Witcher was a niche RPG title and the only reason they could make it was due to the fact that the PC is an open platform and would not have been able to afford the licensing costs to develop on the PS3 or 360 and yes they were probably damn happy it sold a million. They are going to put Witcher 2 on consoles as well because hey they can make even more money by doing so its a concept so simple I cant believe you cant grasp it

    But you make selling a million on the PC like its a huge accomplishment and to be honest it is. Anyway I was messing with you a little so do not be so uptight. Since I loved the Witcher, I am really looking forward to their sequel. I am also looking at their venture into DRM Free games and how their games will fare on the PC now that they are a known player instead of a fresh startup. I have noticed that games like Empire and the Witcher from virtually unknown developers have fared much better under piracy than big name developers like IW. It will be interesting to see how such developers fare once their name and their games become more mainstream. Anyway with those million copies sold, CD Projekt has expanded their company which means that it will cost a lot more in development cost for their next game. In the hard climate that we face today, if CD projekt only release a PC game, it would be interesting to know if they can repeat their past performance if not exceed it.

    Also please tell me which platform generates the most of Activisions revenue (hint: its not consoles)?
    I will answer your question with another question. Why don't you tell me why Activision has a game that generates more money on the PC then consoles that do not have Dedicated Servers, No LAN play, is tightly controlled, no custom mods, no custom maps and most importantly have VERY Little Piracy at all. Now parallel that to what IWNET is trying to do and you see there is a strong connection. Hmmmm, I believe you just made my point without even knowing it. I think what this shows is that you really do not understand the argument or even the concept. I know this will not get through to you and its a shame because the evidence is sitting right there in your face.

    If no one ever pirated a game on the PC we would be in exactly the same situation we are now.

    I totally disagree with this statement. When you see that nice HDTV that you want you have a choice and a very simple one. You either buy it or you do not. If you want it, there is no other method but to Save for it and purchase it when you have the money. This is no different on the PC. If a game is worthy of your money, weather you are in college, Kid living in their parents basement, no matter what, you have the choice of finding a means to pay for what you want or not. I believe if there was no piracy, The PC would be the absolute fertile grounds for all gaming. This was the case when piracy was in the background but now that it's mainstream, the PC is becoming the dumping ground for ports while the only thing that shines are MMOs but MMOs is everything PC gamers seem to hate if you follow this thread.

  • YourMessageHere #90 3 years ago

    All this "they are forcing you to use IWNet to prevent piracy and ban invalid CD keys" line some people in this thread are spouting is nothing whatsoever to do with the lack of dedicated servers. The two can and usually are completely seperate. Plenty of games do mandatory online key validations with their creators as a part of internet play, yet have dedicated servers.

    This statement by Bowling is simply a restatement of what he said before, and an implicit "fuck off" to anyone who continues to see the holes in what he's saying. IW are not going to do anything about this without a big fight. He, or whoever pulls his strings, is still stupid for underestimating and dismissing his market and what they want, and in my view he and IW are thoroughly untrustworthy and autocratic to an unwarranted and meaningless degree. I'll not buy anything they make again.

    EDIT:
    @ Machiavellian:

    CoD4 was highly pirated on PC. If this were so terribly significant, then why are IW making MW2 for PC? If the impact of this piracy has been so terrible, why are IW not going bust right now, rather than one of the most influential developers around for all platform including PC? MW2 is a huge, lavish and very expensively created piece of software. The PC piracy may have outstripped sales and IW may have whined interminably about it in every outlet that could tolerate their blubbering, but this doesn't disguise the fact that the "victims" of this "crime" have made a huge pile of cash. General_Zod is quite correct, these are businesses whose aim is to make a profit, and the move of formerly PC only devs into the console market is nothing to do with piracy, and everything to do with the convergence of PC and console architectures making these huge markets increasingly easy to sell to and profit from. The PC market is shrinking not because of piracy but because profitability for console games is simply higher once you have the development infrastructure in place to make the games, so more games are made for consoles and players who might have been PC players shift to consoles - you see this over and over again in comments on this site.

    Also, you may moan about steam being imperfect as a bar to piracy, but then, no system is, including consoles. Nor will it ever be - you can't beat piracy, only deal with it. The best case scenario is that piracy is kept low; Valve get this, and reportedly think of pirates as simply potential future customers, rather than thinking of customers as potential future pirates and heaping them with DRM, which is why Valve are popular. Similarly, regarding the PSP: yes, think of how much money Sony have spent trying to stamp out piracy. Then think how much they could have made and how well people would think of them if, instead of doing that, they simply accepted that it would happen at the outset, opened the platform up for everyone, and instead invested that money spent on piracy in games, bringing prices down and quality up.

    Finally, you can't significantly mod an MMO beyond the interface (and this is done extensively in WoW) because it's a persistent shared world, and it has by its nature to be both perpetually connected to a central server, and tightly controlled. None of these applies to FPS games - the comparison is totally invalid.
    Edited by YourMessageHere at 22/10/09 @ 21:18

  • Zaiz #91 3 years ago

    @Machiavellian

    PC piracy is not as rampant as developers think, or want you to think. For one, there is no way of tracking the darn thing(thanks to torrents). For two, piracy is often used to explain why a game sold below expectation on the PC. Maybe the game just sucked! We also know that heavily DRM'd games are pirated more heavily than almost totally DRM free games. Bethesda's games have sold disturbingly well, and the toughest DRM on them is that you have to stick a disk in. And many developers are thriving on the PC, which is contrary to reports of 4x more piracy than purchasing. If that was true, for relatively niche genres like RTS, they'd never, ever sell well. Relic would be toast if that was true, and Relic is thriving.

    Even if there were a method to tracking torrents, it'd still not be exactly representative of piracy. Why? Because PC gamers also employ pirated copies of games they already own to, say, get the .exe crack. I've done it several times before because of DRM, or simply because I hate changing discs constantly. This is, of course, illegal if DRM is involved, as that counts as you breaking encryption. On something you own.(eh?)

    I'm not saying that piracy is good, but I am saying it isn't so endemic as they say it is. It probably will be more common than usual for MW2, out of spite for removing the PC advantages(other than powerful hardware) from PC gamers. Of course, this isn't a good thing, as it'll prove to Activision that PC needs more DRM, that your average pirate will be totally unhampered by.

  • Machiavellian #92 3 years ago

    @Zaiz
    I am a software developer but on the corporate end and I can tell you that PC software piracy is greater than any gamer believes or even understand. PC gamers view the world where its about them. They see things where if it doesn't affect them then it doesn't have an effect. PC gamers continue to dismiss piracy with this ideal that just because a company is doing ok in THEIR eyes that all is well. If you only planned your business to survive one year at a time then NO, PC Piracy today is not enough to be a serious problem but more of an inconvenience. If you look at PC Pirating for the last 5 years up to today and you plan 5 years from now then yes you start to plan something now or even before now to handle a growing problem.

    Most smart companies do not wait for things to become so bad that their business is adversely affect by a problem instead they proactively try to solve the problem before it gets to a point where they really have to make a knee jerk reactions to save their business. What I am trying to say is that any company that waits until PC Piracy is so rampant that it seriously jeopardize their company, deserve to find themselves out of business.

    Look at the trend of piracy on the PC, can any one of you say that it has not increase, that software piracy on the PC period has not become mainstream and a culture is being built that is growing faster than legit customers.

    I look at PC piracy like the chronic disease Diabetes. Diabetes is a disease where you can feel the effects of the disease but it can be very mild for a long time but underneath it's eating away at your health. The damage is gradual but constant and if left unchecked will destroy vital organs needed to live.

    You do not solve a problem by waiting until the problem becomes virulent instead you make plans and be proactive early so that if the problem does get to the point to adversely affect your business you can survive it.

    The decision by IW is not soly to do with PC Piracy but it is a top reason. Piracy on the PC for COD4 has made it very easy for IW/Activision to think of an alternative solution that they feel PC gamers and IW can live with. Even then to only see this solution as a stop gate would be limited. If you are truly going to do away with dedicated servers and LAN, then you might as well go the full route and create a server structure like WOW, where everything is handled by the servers including distributing Single Player code in order to play the game. I am not going to continue to rant on about how I see where this is all going. I predicted this a long time ago since the technology is there.

    On a last note, you better believe that pirating a game from Activision on the PC will become increasingly hard if not totally unreliable in the next coming years. Server side technology, encryption, and a whole host of technology will be used to stop piracy that are not DRM but instead implementations and limits placed on PC games. Once Activision come out with their complete strategy, pirates will have to start charging for pirated games because of the development time in cracking those games. to be honest, I am very interested to see how the pirate community reacts and what creative ways they come up with to get around such implementations. It will be very very tough to crack a server side solution where code is run from the server and streamed to your computer since the code logic resides on the server and is not obtainable. Then you have encryption of that code which makes intercepting the feed worthless.

  • DanXan #93 3 years ago

    How will a clan v clan game work then ? u have to buddy ppl form other clans and ur chucked onto a server and map and just have to get on with it ?

  • Machiavellian #94 3 years ago

    @DanXan
    With the new steam integration, I am guessing its the same way that L4D does it but since I haven't used steam in over a year, I would not know. I know you have the whole clan interface within Steam so I m thinking you will use it to organize your clan games.
    Edited by Machiavellian at 26/10/09 @ 13:23

  • ataboy #95 3 years ago

    This is about ONE thing. Activision (i.e Bobby Kotick) INCREASING PROFITS. Everything else... forget about it.

    The ONLY way you can stop a guy like Bobby Kotick is STOP GIVING HIM YOUR MONEY! Do the math. If everyone that has signed the petition simply does not buy MW2, Mr. Kotick WILL feel the pain.

    If publishers like EA and Activision had their way all games would be played on consoles only, where they can control content. The trend has been there for a while now. One of the problems with this is that it will kill the modding communities and therefore kill the innovation that has been at the heart of the gaming industry since day 1. Kotick himself said his goal "...was to take all the fun out of making video games." (See article)

    Again, the ONLY way you can fight this trend is STOP GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY!
    Edited by ataboy at 31/10/09 @ 14:26