PC Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer shrinks

By Robert Purchese Published 5 November, 2009

Falls in-line with console cap of 18 players.

Infinity Ward has revealed that the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 will support only 18 players online, whereas previous instalments have catered for 32.

Nine-versus-nine is what console gamers can expect and, speaking in a Best Buy Live Chat (via Kotaku), the developer outlined this number as the future-focus for the war series.

IW veteran Mackey McCandlish said a cap of 18 players helped the team hone map sizes, perks, classes, challenges and more effectively.

Nevertheless, the PC crowd - still smarting over the lack of dedicated server support in MW2 - is unlikely to take the decision sitting down.

Modern Warfare 2 launches this Tuesday 10th November.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (84) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • General_Zod #1 2 years ago

    Oh dear this is not going to end well. Well as being a fan of the COD series I wont be picking up anything from IW until they bring back dedicated servers which will probably be never. It was fun while it lasted.

  • Bazfrag #2 2 years ago

    Falls in-line with console cap of 18 players.

    Surely that should be "Fails online?

  • Fab4 #3 2 years ago

    PC..its a 360 in a different case ;)

  • CableNut #4 2 years ago

    They will make you use controllers next on the PC and make the mouse history, the way things are going :o

  • Pirotic #5 2 years ago

    I'm sure PC users will take this well :D
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 09:01

  • PrivateFloyd #6 2 years ago

    /grabs deckchair
    /grabs popcorn
    /takes a seat

  • des #7 2 years ago

    lulz

  • Negotiator #8 2 years ago

    Why even make it for the PC, the console versions sell millions more and the PC owners cry like babys if something ain't to their taste, morons.

  • UncleLou #9 2 years ago

    They just like crying PC gaming babies more than retarded console nerds.

  • menage #10 2 years ago

    I'm not a PC player. But this seems like disaster after disaster for a title this huge.

  • waggy79 #11 2 years ago

    lol

  • TOOTR #12 2 years ago

    Apparently there will be no mouse/keyboard support either - just an Xbox controller option.

    Really.

  • PearOfAnguish #13 2 years ago

    Negotiator, there's a very good reason for all the moaning. Dedicated servers are better than user-hosted servers in a number of ways (and their presence does not mean you can't also have user-hosted games). Most multiplayer games have them for a reason.

    According to this interview there's also no lean, no console and no way to edit things like FOV (though I doubt it'd be hard to hack something like that).

  • kallenai #14 2 years ago

    Any forum allows for free speech, I don't agree with IW focus on the console market and how they seem to have 'forgotten' it was the PC market that put them on the map.

    Just because I don't as a PC gamer like their development focus on consoles it does not make me either a 'moron' or a 'baby', I'm just voicing my opinion. :)

  • Quint2020 #15 2 years ago

    Run for the hills it's going to be a shitstorm of gargantuan proportions!

  • TOOTR #16 2 years ago

    Ok not really. But they might as well have said that lol. It's going to get UGLY!

  • Xerx3s #17 2 years ago

    This is an improvement for PC gamers! IW said so!

    Sigh.

  • kangarootoo #18 2 years ago

    This is almost bizarre. I've yet to see a genuine bit of good PR about MW2.


    @Negotiator

    "cry like babys if something ain't to their taste, morons."

    Quit crying about it (the irony is clearly lost on you).

  • Sunyavadin #19 2 years ago

    And people will still pay for it because, as has been demonstrated - PEOPLE ARE STUPID.

  • Bazfrag #20 2 years ago

    Im actually surprised they haven't claimed a reduced player count stops piracy. Can anyone guess which version has already leaked and is being mass pirated? Hint - rhymes with hex blox.

    @pear. They took lean out cuz it unbalanced the game.. unlike the perks which apparently don't....
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 09:38

  • hiddenranbir #21 2 years ago

    Much better than high performance, 64-bit dedicated servers, really!

    Oh dear lord!


    Still, while the MW2 PC community might die, thankfully we have greener pastures in the remaining FPS games that haven't gone stupid.
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 09:38

  • theiceman #22 2 years ago

    Hmm,socks?

  • skillian #23 2 years ago

    I thought people already knew this?

    Surely it was obvious - the reason consoles have 9 vs 9 is that home internet connections wouldn't be able to satisfactorily handle an increased player count. Now the PC is doing multiplayer the same way, the same restrictions obviously apply.

  • rawburger #24 2 years ago

    Dear Insanity Ward, No, just no. You had one of the most fun games on pc in cod4, and now you do this.....
    Not even going to get this second hand now.

    /sad


  • innokenti #25 2 years ago

    Ah, the hilarity of it all. IW/Activision really are trying very very hard to ingratiate themselves with the PC audience.

    Still, that's a fair bit of money I'll be keeping to myself. So I win.

  • videogangs #26 2 years ago

    My first reaction to this was to be up in arms, but then I realised from a personal perspective this is actually good news. Trying to find a decent, balanced game of search and destroy with no more than 8 a side (preferably 4-6) is practically impossible in COD4 at the moment, so at least this way I have more chance.

    However, I don't disagree with taking the option away from sadistic people who find repeated spawn rape fun.

  • Mooglepies #27 2 years ago

    Can P2P actually handle 18 players without lag?

    Can any consolers here shed some light on that, Ive not used P2P for fps in years...

  • asphaltcowboy #28 2 years ago

    If it helps balance the game, I fail to see the issue...

  • skillian #29 2 years ago

    Can P2P actually handle 18 players without lag?

    Depends on the game, and the host's internet connection (particularly upload speed).

    But with CoD, and the average Briton's connection, no. That's why the console player count is nearly always lower than the PC player count for most online games.

  • Bazfrag #30 2 years ago

    Can P2P actually handle 18 players without lag?

    Nope.

  • Avatargr #31 2 years ago

    Something off-topic I want to ask. Is BF BC 2 going to have dedicated servers and does anyone know when BF 3 is coming out? Thanks

  • Fab4 #32 2 years ago

    "Can P2P actually handle 18 players without lag?"

    FFS! Its NOT P2P. Its client/server...just not a dedicated server. You'll be connecting to some other users PC and using their internet connection, you wont be sharing the load.

  • booner #33 2 years ago

    Facepalm :/ IW fail

  • FooAtari #34 2 years ago

    Had little interest in MW2 as it was, just another CoD2 mod at the end of the day. But as it would appear MW will be a better multiplayer experience on the PC than MW2, and PC multiplayer games tend to have a longer shelf life and healthy user base for much longer than any console title I see no reason to buy MW2.

    I really do have a strong dislike for Activision now.

    Why Blizzard, why...

  • davisorle #35 2 years ago

    Actually i read elsewhere that according to this next link, they dropped it to 9vs9. Hadnt had time to read it myself yet. You guys can verofy for yourselves if you want to. I will check later.

    [link url=http:// forums.bestbuy.com/t5/Gaming/Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2-L ive-Chat-Session-Transcript/td-p/67692
    ]http://fo rums.bestbuy.com/t5/Gaming/Call...[/link]

    Short story, all this cause Infinity wanted more money and higher price, also less expences by making us play with eachother's lag due to no servers and as a result they had to reduce online max players. That gave me a motive to admit online that I wont be paying their title for sure as I decided 100% a few minutes ago. Instead I will DL a copy and play the campaign. Im not ashamed of it if they arent ashamed of using their audience. Yeah you are great gaming minds and great at your job but honestly, that gives me no reason to respect nor back you up.

    With love, Manos.

    P.S. I also doubt ill be buying it when cheaper. i really wanna make sure they dont get the extra income they hoped for from screwing gamers over, even to that extend.

  • FooAtari #36 2 years ago

    Activision/IW fail

  • penhalion #37 2 years ago

    @Fab4

    Actually, given the way IW have been describing their service it sounds exactly like their network infrastructure is P2P based just like the consoles. They provide a matchmaking server but, no dedicated servers. I'm not sure how that is anything other than a P2P network.

  • Fab4 #38 2 years ago

    "Actually, given the way IW have been describing their service it sounds exactly like their network infrastructure is P2P based just like the consoles. They provide a matchmaking server but, no dedicated servers. I'm not sure how that is anything other than a P2P network. "

    Then you have fuck all idea what true P2P is.

    Edit: http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 10:06

  • beastmaster #39 2 years ago

    Lots of people up in arms here. If it scores a 10 and it turns out to be a stunning game (marked on Metacritic etc.), would people here still buy it, despite their hatred of what's going on? Genuine question.

  • FooAtari #40 2 years ago

    @Fab4
    FFS! Its NOT P2P. Its client/server...just not a dedicated server. You'll be connecting to some other users PC and using their internet connection, you wont be sharing the load.

    True. However that does not provide the same performance as a true dedicated server.

  • Nissenakke #41 2 years ago

    I never played COD4 on PC, but surely some of the maps must've been pretty crowded and chaotic with 32 players? Not saying they should take away the option, but 32 players on some of the COD4 maps sounds like the chaos of playing "Free for all" on "Killhouse" or HQ on "Shipment" on the 360 - sorta funny once in a while, but not something I would do often.

  • Fab4 #42 2 years ago

    "True. However that does not provide the same performance as a true dedicated server. "

    Ofc it doesnt. Thats why the majority of MP games on consoles are ruined. Its sad to say it, but CoD3 had the best netcode of all the CoD games on the consoles. That was a true P2P setup. If they'd stuck with that and ironed out the bugs in it, then 32 players would have been more than possible. But no, they went back to client/server.

  • collateral89 #43 2 years ago

    chicken fart

  • hiddenranbir #44 2 years ago

    client/server WITH migration?

    That's efficient....

  • Bazfrag #45 2 years ago

    Quoted for twattyness.

    "Mackey-IW: PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings."

    gtfo. using a mouse on pc is now a feature?

  • hiddenranbir #46 2 years ago

    Woo, mouse control! Text chat!

    The fact they are highlighting THAT as the special PC features...wow, just wow.

  • Xerx3s #47 2 years ago

    "Can P2P actually handle 18 players without lag? "

    Depends on who is hosting. If we host, we don't have lag and a good game and the yanks don't, if them yanks host they have a good game but we have massive lag. Either way, 90% of the time, someone is screwed. Not that the game tells you that because the enigmatic bars (wtf is wrong with actual ping?) usually show green even when the game is stuttering at 1 fps.

  • Xerx3s #48 2 years ago

    Fab4: That's how live works as well and everybody calls it p2p. Splitting hairs really, in the end it's shite.

    EDIT: Come to think about it, it's even worse than actual p2p because it gives the host a massive advantage over the rest.
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 10:33

  • Fab4 #49 2 years ago

    That's why it irks me so much. It gives P2P a bad name, and if M$/$ony insist on consoles using other consoles as servers, P2P is definitely a fairer way to implement game hosting.

  • Spekingur #50 2 years ago

    I have been on custom servers in CoD4 with a max player count of 60.
    Also, since when are graphic settings on a PC considered as a 'special feature'? Did IW have a change of programming directors or something? From humans to monkies?
    Seriously, no dedicated, no lean, no console - these are decisions made by baboons not PC FPS programming humans.

  • PearOfAnguish #51 2 years ago

    Donnie, we've heard that same rubbish over and over again for years and it's still not happened. PC games are still popular and still make money and still have many advantages over consoles. And the situation for PC gamers actually seems to be getting better, we're getting all kinds of cool indie and free games as usual, and more of the big console titles.

  • Sunyavadin #52 2 years ago

    "Why Blizzard, why..."

    Because Activision offered them ONE MEEEEEELLION DOLLARS!

  • Fab4 #53 2 years ago

    "Lots of people up in arms here. If it scores a 10 and it turns out to be a stunning game (marked on Metacritic etc.), would people here still buy it, despite their hatred of what's going on? Genuine question."

    I wont buy another CoD/MW until they ditch the perks/kill-streaks, and even then, if they didnt sort out the abysmal netcode, i'd still have my doubts.

  • Widge #54 2 years ago

    Next update:

    All graphical options set to Low unless you order the Prestige edition.

  • Fitzmogwai #55 2 years ago

    Roll on Battlefield 3.

  • FooAtari #56 2 years ago

    @beastmaster
    Lots of people up in arms here. If it scores a 10 and it turns out to be a stunning game (marked on Metacritic etc.), would people here still buy it, despite their hatred of what's going on? Genuine question.

    No.

    But then I was already unlikely to buy it anyway.

  • TitusCrow #57 2 years ago

    If you have an Xbox360 or ps3 - its bussiness as usual. However if you have a PC you are fuked! no dedicated servers, player count of 18 -and thats if you have an excellent upstream from your home connection. Most will play 6vs6 due to the lag of the 18player matches.
    What else do we have.. no lean, no mods, no recording of games, no console ( no Cvar commands at all ) you dont like the FOV ? to bad fuko, its 65 and you will like it! no community - forget the days when you joined a server and there was a bunch of decent types there and so you added that little clubhouse to your favs list.

    No more little comunities all over the web.
    Oh and forget playing at 20-40 pings mates! you will have sub 100ms and like it, however you wont know you have sub 100ms because this numerical representation, recognised everywhere will turn into little green bars..but what do they represent I hear you ask? who the hell knows.. they were never, and will never, be codified! oh and god forbid if you arent on the guy who is hosting's team, that guy will be runing around with 0 ping like a GOD! he will own you!
    Whats my advice? forget all about the PC version it will be to gimped to enjoy! you must let activision know this agression will not stand man! the dudes mind!
    That said - if you go the consoles I'm sure it will be great fun. for the rest of the PC guys, no-one saw this comming, it was nearly impossible to fail with this game release, and yet they have alienated nearly the whole pc audience at a few strokes, and mocked us with it.
    Oh and where was Euro-gamer's reportage in full of this whole debacle? you activi nuthuggers you!

  • Mooglepies #58 2 years ago

    It's success, critically and comercially is inevitable and justified.

    I won't be buying it at the price it is now, not because of principles or anything so ethereal, but because they are asking me to pay more money while providing less features, reliability and longevity than the previous game.

    It's not good value for my money, end of the day.

    Edit: Minus ratings? Is someone offended that I don't share the same views on value for money as them? Personally I don't buy a game I only intend to play in single player if it's above £25.
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 12:32

  • Tyronne #59 2 years ago

    It has to be said that as the weeks and months have gone by, I have lost more and more interest in this game (starting with the ludicrous price stunt at the start and now with the continual nipping away of what you can do with a game your buying) and I have no intention of picking it up whatsoever.

    Doubt I will not be the only one but sadly not enough to make a point.

  • paketep #60 2 years ago

    IW's fuckup of the day.

    At this rate, by 11.10 they'll tell us that we can only play at 640x480.

    God dammit, who can say with a serious face that "mouse, text chat and graphics options" are extra features?. How the mighty have fallen.

    Fuck Infinity Ward, fuck their lies.

  • bioreit #61 2 years ago

    @ Fab4

    Well said re P2P. This is *not* P2P, this is one client becoming a temporary server to the other clients.

    @ Penhalion

    You've really just shown yourself up. I thought you were supposed to be pretty knowledgeable about computing technology - least, that's how you have presented yourself in many posts. Thanks for the belly laugh!

  • JensonJet #62 2 years ago

    The argument of "don't forget where COD started" is pathetic! Who cares where anything started, or who created the first! Is it important when you drive to consider who invented the first car? Is it important to you when you switch on a light or TV or open a door, to remember who invented those? Ridiculous argument. No one cares whether a game started on a PC or not, it's simply not important. Perhaps that's the problem with these complainers – the realisation that their most prized possession simply isn't important to the evolution of gaming or the industry as a whole any more.

    Is it me, or does the PC community appear to be the least happy of the lot of us? You have the single largest community of cheats, and the largest community of pirates and now it seems the largest community of complainers! Nice going.

    Face facts that the console is doing more to turn games mainstream, thus allowing for bigger budgets and generally better games. The PC community may have started the gaming revolution but it now seems hell-bent on bringing about it's own demise.

    The developers have stated that the reduced number of gamers is because the maps and perks are designed around a maximum of 18. That sounds perfectly reasonable. If it's important to play against 30 or 40 gamers, then clearly Modern Warfare 2 is not your game. Choose to play another game. Easy.

  • Synthesis #63 2 years ago

    They make more money from consoles, that's the only real reason for doing any of this - money.

    It's not about piracy because piracy is rife on consoles as well, it's just a little more difficult. Plus as anyone with a brain knows, most people that download a game were never going to buy it anyway and any game with well made multiplayer modes is far less likely to be downloaded in the first place since most people will buy it in order to play online.

    They would like to control the PC users, they want to reduce the lifespan of their game and reduce the costs.

    It's all about money, they will make more unless the console folk boycott the game as well, but from what I've seen most console users just decide to mock their PC forefathers and will buy the game anyway.

    It will end well for IW, they will make bucketloads of cash, gain another excuse to dumb down or drop the PC platform and they can reduce the lifespan of their game online meaning they can reduce the time between sequels and make even more money.

    This kind of behaviour will only get worse if the digital download market consumes retail.

  • Mooglepies #64 2 years ago

    Jenson: We're the only ones complaining because we're the only ones that have had features removed. Features that were, realistically, unnecessary removals. We're complaining not simply because we're raging at this game being "consolised" but because we're afraid that this will be the first of many. The difference between PC and consoles doesn't stop at the number of players and the increased graphics options and this is choosing to staunchly ignore those differences. Difference is good.

    It also amuses me that they've balanced around 18 players when the non-dedicated server system (happy now, Fab4?) isn't going to support even that lag-free unless you're on a LAN or you all have superduperfibreoptic connections.

  • Nissenakke #65 2 years ago

    "It's all about money, they will make more unless the console folk boycott the game as well, but from what I've seen most console users just decide to mock their PC forefathers and will buy the game anyway. "

    Whoah. Are you seriously suggesting I should have a bad conscience for buying this on the 360? I enjoyed COD4 on the 360, and I 'm sure I'm gonna enjoy this one as well.

    And I used to be a PC gamer for many years (got my first PC back in 1990), but couldn't be arsed to buy expensive hardware all the time to play the latest games without lag and with the best graphics. I do occasionally miss playing some PC exclusive games, but mostly I'm very happy with my 360 and PS3.

    I DO agree that the server thing is a weird move from IW, but if you don't like it, don't buy the game.

    Wonder how many of the people who say they aren't gonna buy the game, will pirate it to play the single player?
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 12:33

  • JensonJet #66 2 years ago

    Mooglepies,

    The developers have stated that the reduction in number of online players is because they feel 18 is the optimum number for the way the maps and perks are designed. Is that not their perogative to decide how their game should be played? Seriously, what's next... complaining that you want three players in Army of Two, or five players in Left4Dead? If it's so important to play with many gamers I believe MMORPG offer a far larger group. As far as the dedicated servers is concerned, it does at least reduce the number of people cheating I assume.

    I agree with you though, that this is probably the start of PC games going this way. Eventually you have to accept that developers do what they like with their games. Eventually developers such as Infinity Ward may stop supporting the PC and then you'll no doubt be happier!

    I can understand complaining about a game you own of which none of us do own right now, but ultimately there are many alternatives and surely the sensible attitude is just move on and play another game. If I cared to I could complain about so many games, but instead save my complaints, which are ultimately pointless, to games I play, and if I dislike a game or it's features enough, I play another.

  • Nephirion #67 2 years ago

    The lower player cap is most likely to compensate for the lag that will be experienced using the IWNet p2p system. The removal of dedicated servers has destroyed any hope of the PC version being used for competitive purposes anyway so the player cap is pretty much irellevant now. I have preordered the 360 version as the PC version offers no real worthwhile advantages now anyway.

  • sneetch #68 2 years ago

    @MrMarc
    Jeezus Shitting Christ. How can Activision / IW make this even worse before launch?

    I'm half expecting one in three boxes to contain some kind of nerve agent at this stage. ;)

    This news is just further reinforcing my decision to steer well clear of this game until they "fix" what they've done to the PC version. If they don't "fix" it then that's also fine, I'll go elsewhere.

  • Mooglepies #69 2 years ago

    @Jen: I'm not complaining, per se. I'll probably even buy the game once it reaches a low enough price point. Ultimately if I want a game like MW2, I still have MW1 and they can't touch that due to dedicated servers being present. Also, on PC you can play 5 player left4dead. And, remarkably, it works fine. Dunno about 3 player Army of Two though. My issue isn't with the decreased player count at all, 18 is in fact perfectly reasonable for me in most circumstances.

    But.

    They're asking for more money while providing an inferior service; it's less reliable, there's less longevity (no custom content, they can switch the servers off when they want to, not when we're ready to stop playing) and less focus on the community. This is balanced against a new singleplayer campaign (that won't last that long) new perks, weapons and maps. When a developer makes a sequel the onus is on them to provide a compelling reason for their market to move on from the old game. As customers, the onus is on us to let them know how we feel about what they're presenting us. Lots of people take it too far, but there's space for reasonable, polite complaint without outright avoidance ("just go play another game";) or rudeness ("IW ARE SUCKING ACTIVI$ION'S COCK, NEVER BUY IW EVER AGAIN";).

    For console gamers, MW2 is a clear upgrade. For PC gamers, it's not clear at all. In some ways it's a downgrade, in other ways it's an upgrade.

  • makeamazing #70 2 years ago

    Donnie, we've heard that same rubbish over and over again for years and it's still not happened. PC games are still popular and still make money and still have many advantages over consoles. And the situation for PC gamers actually seems to be getting better, we're getting all kinds of cool indie and free games as usual, and more of the big console titles.

    Well I hate to say it, but I agree with Donnie, people can ignore the facts, but PC gaming is NOT as popular as it once was. Yes it might make money, but only a few games can make money on PC alone... and there lies the problem. They are part of suite of platforms, they are no longer (except in a few cases such as Diablo, Warcraft and Total War) games that can make enough money back from development on a single platform. Even on multiplatform releases they are in general not the main money maker.

    I still play PC games, and there are some great indi stuff available, but to think that games companies consider the PC market in the same way they did 5 years ago, well they dont.

  • IneptPercy #71 2 years ago

    Did I hear the PC version will have 360 controller support? thank god for that. Personally I like the nice 1080p 60fps PC goodness while sitting back with a controller.

    As for online... I gave up on COD a long time ago as I am rubbish and its no fun after a while.

  • Iain815 #72 2 years ago

    What. The. Fuck.

    Seriously, just what the fuck is happening?

  • spiny #73 2 years ago

    This is actually a Very Good Thing. In COD4 a 16v16 match plays more like UT or Quake than COD, I generally won't join a server with more than 14 players on already. You get far less grenade spam and random deaths. For whatever (console) reasons, the maps just aren't big enough for more.

    That's all a moot point though. It'll be crap having some 11yo drop his hosting of a 5v5 game because it's bedtime or he's loosing. I'm not buying it without dedicated server support...

  • Darren #74 2 years ago

    The Call of Duty games were one of the few games I ever played online on the PC so this news that the new game is being effectively dumbed down in line with the console versions is yet another nail in the coffin for the series on the platform it originated on. I'm sure the PC community won't be happy with this news but, as far as I'm concerned, it's yet another reason for me not to buy the game anyway. The PC is the best platform to play online games on anyway; less prone to lag even with 32 players and no subscription fee either.

    To be honest, the excessive hype over this game and the fact that EVERYONE seems to be going on about it at the moment has just completely put me off buying it anyway even though I had originally planned on buying it for the PC. I think Borderlands is the fresher FPS experience I'd been looking for so I don't need another generic military FPS with a short campaign and respawning enemies, ta very much. Saves me £35 anyway. :)
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 13:51

  • Darren #75 2 years ago

    @makeamazing - Personally I think the PC has always been a niche market compared with the consoles, it hasn't just happened in the last few years. It's only the fact that games are easier to pirate on the PC that has prevented it reaching the same popularity as the consoles. I think piracy has done a lot of damage to the PC industry so those people responsible for it only have themselves to blame if developers are putting less emphasis on PC games than they used to.

    I've noticed that it's rare these days for a PC game to launch along the console versions, usually they come out months later, the usual excuse being to add extra features but in reality it's just the publishers being scared of losing sales to the pirates (or something, I can't say I've ever really understood that logic as delaying a PC game, surely makes it MORE likely to be pirated?).
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 14:13

  • dnd #76 2 years ago

    This is actually a Very Good Thing. In COD4 a 16v16 match plays more like UT or Quake than COD, I generally won't join a server with more than 14 players on already. You get far less grenade spam and random deaths. For whatever (console) reasons, the maps just aren't big enough for more.

    Haha...my mate (who is a pc gamer as well) has COD4 on his PS3, and he came around once when i was playing it on pc. He was appalled ('You can't play it that way!'), b/c we were all running around like it was UT and blazing away. I just laughed - neither of us is good enough with a gamepad to play at that pace, physically impossible (for us).

  • enjoy76 #77 2 years ago

    Well Activision have helped me even more now, after the dedicated server withdrawl I deleted my pre-order, now they have totally stuffed up the multiplayer on the PC the only reason I can think of getting Modern Warfare 2 on the PC now is the single player campaign, so I guess I will be playing the free Single Player edition of this game now there is no incentive at all to buy it for it's multiplayer. Thanks for helping me to make up my mind Activision.

  • PearOfAnguish #78 2 years ago

    "but to think that games companies consider the PC market in the same way they did 5 years ago, well they dont."

    No I don't think that's the case at all. 5 years isn't long, go back to the 90s maybe when there were lots of really fantastic PC exclusives and you might have a point. Obviously that isn't financially viable any more, but I don't actually mind seeing multi-format releases, I prefer to play games on a PC so I'm always pleased to hear of another title which may have traditionally been console exclusive appear on PC. Konami and Capcom weren't producing many ports of their games five years ago, now we've got Resident Evil 5, Bionic Commando, Dead Rising 2 etc. That shows that developers are considering PC on a more equal footing instead of having to produce exclusives. And PC still has an indie and homebrew community that consoles can't touch. PC market isn't dying, it's just changing.

    "The PC piracy argument isn't working so well with this release, afaik the only version up on teh net atm is the 360 versions so that is being hit harder by the pirates"

    This is happening a lot now. Borderlands was available to download on 360 weeks before release. The piracy argument is fairly irrelevant with a game like this anyway because the main focus is online play which isn't generally possible with a naughty yarr'd copy.
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 14:32

  • Spekingur #79 2 years ago

    MW2 will sell in massive amounts. For a community and longlivety of a series something must be in the game to make people WANT to come back to it. On the PC for FPSs this normally means a good and customizable multiplayer. You still see people play multiplayer in old games mostly due how customizable the multiplayer is.
    Less is more seems to be what is going on here - sadly it isn't. It's like the saying 'a picture is worth a thousand words'. What if it's a picture of the colour blue?

    Edit: Also, to those who think the PC market not financally viable anymore or that PC gaming is dead. Seriously? MMOs might have to disagree with you as well as Blizzard.
    Edited by 1 at 05/11/09 @ 14:31

  • Bravestinsane #80 2 years ago

    Pissing me off some of the haters on pc players here...

    Im a console player mainly but been getting into PC games quite a lot, having fun on Shattered Horizons.

    Anyway ill say what another perosn said on Kotaku..

    PC games make consoles games look as good as they do, if it wasn't for US MUGS forking out on a new graphics card every year or two, then Nvidia and AMD wouldn't be scrapping it out against each other tyring to come up with new more efficient kick arse cards..

    In turn those cards are then passed down to YOU the console gamers, if it wasn't for us buying new cards you would still be playing side scrollers on a fucking floppy disk.

    Im getting this on the Xbox but heres my voice about this PC situation, who the FUCK do IW think they are continuously screwing over the PC community, when if it wasn't them pushing the market forward the consoles wouldn't even exist for those greedy cunts to sponge of like they are now.

    PS: Bobby Kotick is the king of the CUNTS

  • PuppyFiddler #81 2 years ago

    Reducing the player count is a bloody great thing in my opinion. CoD4 with 32 players IS ALWAYS a massive nade and camp fest and with the amount of new perks being given out with practically every kill in MW2 you'd have people reaching the tactical nuke far too much, probably. With 32 players you always find you get shot in the back or the side while shooting someone else and every corner you turn there's someone camping it. Even big maps like Crossfire you end up very often confined to a small areas of the map not being able to move out due to multiple campers on choke points with nades landing every 2 seconds.
    Plus I don't see the problem in reducing pings rates to little green bars. It'll avoid pretentious pc snobs ommiting people with higehr than 100ms pings that would in fact be perfectly playable.

    I have to admit though that I'm buying MW2 for the PS3 after spending a huge amount of time with MW on the PC. This is mainly down to friends having the game on console but it's also about having L4D2 on PC and I'll still have MW on there which shouldn't really be abandoned just because there's another one out and I'd imagine with the no dedicated server support MW won't be dying anytime soon on there.
    Losing dedicated serers is a massive kick in the balls without question.

  • JediMasterMalik #82 2 years ago

    It honestly seems like this game is an experiment to see just how much they can piss off gamers, PC gamers in particular. It's absurd.

  • Nova1977 #83 2 years ago

    So are Activision gonna implement this type of shit with all their upcoming games as well? How long before dedicated servers are sold instead of well - a given - these guys..they make me wanna swear and burn books.

  • TheGuvernor #84 2 years ago

    I think we'll hear a lot of "YAR YAR ME HEARTIES! WHERE'S ME PARROT?!' in the days after release.
    If you catch my drift.