[Official] Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2


Recommended Posts

Great to see some people understand the positive side about this change. I've said it time and time again, the PC version of Call of Duty 4 was ruined by the community and how 'all over the place' the entire experience felt. Each and every server had a different rule-set, despite applying various filters you could never avoid these massively customized servers. Then some guy felt a few perks should be restricted, then he felt certain weapons shouldn't be allowed on the server, then you had a player-count 300% above the actual comfortable limit of the map, then the host had to change core settings and worst of all, you had a player who always suffered from god-complex, kicking and banning everyone he disagreed with.

oh I totally agree with you on that, it frustrated the heck out of me when certain servers would ban X gun, or X perk because they felt it was "overpowered", which in practise usually just meant the admins of the servers couldn't counteract it properly.

But on the flip side, I enjoy playing on certain servers with certain communities. For example in TF2, I often visit a server that has a wide variety of custom user maps on rotation, or some days I might just feel like playing 2fort, so I visit a 24/7 2fort server. I don't experience annoying "host ended game" either (Although of course, they say they've solved this in MW2, but you will still have a brief migration period)

All of that would be taken away if Valve made TF2 or future games act like MW2 will do.

I just don't see why there can't just be a happy medium between the two, i.e have a matchmaking service that acts in the same way the console version does, yet also have dedicated servers and SDK's for those that want one, or keep it as it is in COD4, but isolate those servers that modify the rules (I believe TF2 does this)

You might like/love it but removing it entirely is going to upset a ton of longterm PC gamers who deliberately play on PC because it's the way it is. I own both PS3 COD5 and PC for this reason.

The cynic in me also suggests that they will just use this as a way of ramming paid map packs down our throats every so often like the console versions have, although I'm sure you could argue they have no incentive to do so otherwise.

oh I totally agree with you on that, it frustrated the heck out of me when certain servers would ban X gun, or X perk because they felt it was "overpowered", which in practise usually just meant the admins of the servers couldn't counteract it properly.

But on the flip side, I enjoy playing on certain servers with certain communities. For example in TF2, I often visit a server that has a wide variety of custom user maps on rotation, or some days I might just feel like playing 2fort, so I visit a 24/7 2fort server. I don't experience annoying "host ended game" either (Although of course, they say they've solved this in MW2, but you will still have a brief migration period)

All of that would be taken away if Valve made TF2 or future games act like MW2 will do.

I just don't see why there can't just be a happy medium between the two, i.e have a matchmaking service that acts in the same way the console version does, yet also have dedicated servers and SDK's for those that want one, or keep it as it is in COD4, but isolate those servers that modify the rules (I believe TF2 does this)

You might like/love it but removing it entirely is going to upset a ton of longterm PC gamers who deliberately play on PC because it's the way it is. I own both PS3 COD5 and PC for this reason.

The cynic in me also suggests that they will just use this as a way of ramming paid map packs down our throats every so often like the console versions have, although I'm sure you could argue they have no incentive to do so otherwise.

And this, is why I like the other, usual version of PC gaming. You can revisit the same server, with the same community, and have a great time. With a specific map as well.

Damn this is arkward...

Also, Paid Map Packs wouldn't work because surely the map files will just be put online for the pirates to download?

And this, is why I like the other, usual version of PC gaming. You can revisit the same server, with the same community, and have a great time. With a specific map as well.

Damn this is arkward...

Also, Paid Map Packs wouldn't work because surely the map files will just be put online for the pirates to download?

You could say that again, 170 hours on the same server :laugh: - http://www.gametracker.com/server/85.236.1...yer/Audioboxer/

As for pirating the maps, if it's secured through steam, doubt it.

You could say that again, 170 hours on the same server :laugh: - http://www.gametracker.com/server/85.236.1...yer/Audioboxer/

As for pirating the maps, if it's secured through steam, doubt it.

Oh it uses Steam? I like it even more. Steam means it'll run VAC too right?

Great to see some people understand the positive side about this change. I've said it time and time again, the PC version of Call of Duty 4 was ruined by the community and how 'all over the place' the entire experience felt. Each and every server had a different rule-set, despite applying various filters you could never avoid these massively customized servers. Then some guy felt a few perks should be restricted, then he felt certain weapons shouldn't be allowed on the server, then you had a player-count 300% above the actual comfortable limit of the map, then the host had to change core settings and worst of all, you had a player who always suffered from god-complex, kicking and banning everyone he disagreed with.

Players should not be allowed to have this kind of control at all, it has been the Achilles' heel of "server browser" games for ages, plus the worst of all, most hosts have no idea how terrible their connections or computers were - So despite the server browser reporting green connection, the lag could be horrendous due to terrible internet connections - At least matchmaking 'pings' the host before choosing and actually selects the best host available almost every time.

Matchmaking provides for standardized settings EACH AND EVERY TIME! Select your game-mode and you are 100% sure you won't get thrown in some terrible, messed up game. By creating a more closed environment it's easier to leave pirates in the cold and get rid of cheaters the first time around.

you are picking the worst examples of privately-run servers just to prove a point...

i can only agree with the 'all over the place' line if a particular game doesnt have a working filter system for the server browser...and that 'archilles heel' you are talking about only really applies to games with an utterly broken server browser, which is basically what nobody likes to play anyway... plus, pc games dont report the connection in colours, it reports in milisecond pings...

and about matchmaking... its strictly a 'jump right in' feature, and to think that they have erased all our other options just for this... what happened to clans having their password protected servers , geographically located where every member can get a good ping?

I can agree with the fact you'd like some "custom" servers once and awhile, based on custom maps or perhaps some sort of modification, that is sad to lose but again, you have to look at what you gain as well. One thing I 'forgot' was leaderboards. I mean, it's not important but I'd say most people were lying if they didn't enjoy checking out their global standing, K&D ratios, kills, scores etc. and with a closed matchmaking system that is possible! Means you can see every kill you ever made and not just based on one server - I personally like that.

Having both systems, the old "server browser" system and the new one is not a good idea, first off it kills most of the great features the more closed matchmaking system offers plus it kills the point of matchmaking. By removing players from the matchmaking system you are effectively increasing search times and removing the efficiency of the matchmaking system. It HAS to be one or the other, it can't be both without destroying one of the systems.

Honestly, I think if most people tried to see the great features a closed system had to offer, there wouldn't be so much damn crying. It's a radical change and that is the sole reason why a lot of people are rebelling at this point - I don't blame you but at least have en open mind about it.

carmatic: No I'm not, I'm picking the experience I had from playing Call of Duty 4 on the PC for a few weeks, it took AGES to find a public server with somewhat standardized settings. EVERY server is different, every server is a complete change from the other - It's horrible.

you could say im close minded, but imposing thieir no-server multiplayer system on PC gaming is like clearing out a lush jungle to make way for a plantation... a whole ecosystem is gone, just so they can make more money

if people want a nice and controlled atmosphere, maybe they should stick to consoles, they are like pleasant parks and gardens , compared to the wilderness where FPS gaming came from in the first place

The non-dedicated server issue on PC is horrible. I hope IW realizes that PC gamers playing MW2 are a fraction of the number of PS3 or X360 players. This means there are much fewer PC players in a given area than console gamers, therefore added distance between the host and players, and increased lag.

I know they added this feature to combat piracy, but seriously, this is at the expense of sales and enjoyment factor. I won't be buying this unless I'm sure it will be playable.

Anybody know proper PC System requirements for this game, googling gives me vague results.

Thanks, both ran pretty well so this one should run as well.

And I am not fan of multi-player as well, I never really was comfortable with it, am better off with SP. So am never gonna miss that side of the game. :)

DICE Makes Hay With Dedicated Server Controversy

Earlier this morning, the executive producer for the Battlefield franchise tweaked Call of Duty over Infinity Ward ending dedicated server support, "confirming" that, yes, dedicated server support is "a given" in Battlefield titles on the PC. "Dedicated servers FTW. What ever secures a better online experience is a given for us," Tweeted DICE's K.M. Troedsson.

KM Troedsson (L_Twin) on Twitter [thanks Cirap]

:laugh: Activison you can screw off.

That tweet (

from L_Twin) was great. It was a pretty subtle dig at Infinity Ward (he didn't mention IW or Modern Warfare), and honestly, IW deserves all of the heat that is getting thrown at them for removing dedicated servers. Regardless of what Bowling said in the podcast about the possibility of IWnet evolving over time, I think we all know that is never going to happen. The system will never be anything more than a misguided attempt at mimicking a multiplayer system that is already inferior to server lists and dedicated servers.
DICE Makes Hay With Dedicated Server Controversy

:laugh: Activison you can screw off.

I dunno - is he talking Battlefield 2 and that series - or the gimped console series?

The console series is just the same matchmaking bull**** if I recall? :s

I think people are ****ed because by taking away dedicated servers you take away servers you become a regular player on.

You take away becoming internet-friendz because you only meet them once in matchmaking :/

Battlefield series on consoles may have dedicated servers but its still matchmaking so it makes no difference really :p

I see how dedicated servers are needed with 64player games but COD is only...what 16?

i cant believe the pc crowd are going to have to use this match making crap.

i can see how it makes things easier on consoles, but im sick of being dumped off in matches full of idiots, there being no servers, or it being too laggy.

id rather just find a server i like, and become a regular.

definatly just lowered the chance of me buying this now.

I dunno - is he talking Battlefield 2 and that series - or the gimped console series?

The console series is just the same matchmaking bull**** if I recall? :s

I think people are ****ed because by taking away dedicated servers you take away servers you become a regular player on.

You take away becoming internet-friendz because you only meet them once in matchmaking :/

Battlefield series on consoles may have dedicated servers but its still matchmaking so it makes no difference really :p

I see how dedicated servers are needed with 64player games but COD is only...what 16?

I believe he was talking about the BF series on the PC, not including BF:Heroes. Like BF2 and BF2142.

I dunno - is he talking Battlefield 2 and that series - or the gimped console series?

The console series is just the same matchmaking bull**** if I recall? :s

Bad Company 2 is coming to PC, which is what he is talking about.

I think people are ****ed because by taking away dedicated servers you take away servers you become a regular player on.

You take away becoming internet-friendz because you only meet them once in matchmaking :/

You can "party up" with others or create private matches.

Just to be clear, and someone asked this earlier in the thread.

The PC version does NOT have LAN support either. So, no Hamachi won't get more popular with the PC crowd with MW2. In fact, it won't work at all. Isn't that great?

Just to be clear, and someone asked this earlier in the thread.

The PC version does NOT have LAN support either. So, no Hamachi won't get more popular with the PC crowd with MW2. In fact, it won't work at all. Isn't that great?

Err, WHAT.

Well, that kinda sucks. Screw them. Got a link for that?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The Trump administration doesn't want you to use OpenAI's GPT-5.6 without its approval by David Uzondu Image via @realDonalTrump (X) As OpenAI prepares the release of its next model, GPT 5.6, the White House has instructed the company to limit the distribution of the software to a small group of government-approved partners instead of the general public, as it has done with previous releases. According to The Information, OpenAI Chief Executive Officer Sam Altman sent an internal memo to staff on Thursday explaining that the federal government will approve access "customer by customer" during an initial preview phase. Altman noted in the communication that this restrictive rollout is "not [their] long-term model" for software deployment, and the company plans to work toward a "more sustainable" distribution method later. CNN said that both OpenAI and the Trump administration view the capabilities of GPT 5.6 on the same level as Anthropic's Mythos and that government officials intend to "collaborate with frontier AI labs to develop shared approaches for addressing the challenges of scaling this technology." The latest restriction comes just weeks after the US Commerce Department decided to restrict Fable, a version of Mythos with extra safety "guardrails" to prevent users from exploiting software vulnerabilities. Not long after the release, though, researchers at Amazon found a way to bypass these restrictions, prompting an aggressive response from federal authorities. The government ordered Anthropic to cut off access for non-US citizens located outside the US, non-US citizens living inside the US, and incredibly, even Anthropic's own foreign-born employees. Anthropic now appears to be building a workaround to resolve this compliance block with an update to its Privacy Policy that introduces a category called "Verification Data" to handle KYC and Digital IDs. This setup could mandate digital identity checks to filter users by nationality, requiring a government-issued ID and facial biometric data. Who knows? Maybe in the future, you would have to scan your US Passport or State ID to prove your citizenship before you are allowed to chat with Fable 5 (or any other model).
    • When Windows 7 was released I created an AutoHotkey script that uses Alt+` as a keyboard shortcut to move a window across monitors. I have been using that script for over 15 years and this is the first time I have come across another app that uses the same shortcut!
    • I called it last year that they wouldn't end support when they said there would. There are too many people still on Windows 10 waiting for something better to upgrade to and 11 ain't it! The recent promises of fixing Windows 11's many problems is nice, but unless they deliver on those promises in a big way then I expect customers will still want to stick with 10.
    • Full ACK. I went too far adressing your post specifically. And as you said, it up to us customers as participant of the market dynamic as it happens to decide whether we spend our money on a product or not. The responsibility is to the company. In case of this price hike one could assume that MS is expecting or even starting to see a new interest in XBox hardware so they want to avoid losses per unit sold. I find it fair enough that they granted a period in which everyone interested could grab a unit for the current price (Amazon.de has a reliable stock of XBox Series X digital, which I bought last December after having sold my day one Series X a year ago). It is not that they cash up their customers starting on Monday. Cheers and let's cling to our perfectly fine hardware as long as we deem it worthy in relation to purchasing something new!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      xvvxcvv earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Enthusiast
      Xonos went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      412
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      129
    4. 4
      neufuse
      69
    5. 5
      Xenon
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!