[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

    • Amazon Prime Day 2026: Best Dolby soundbar deals from Sony, Samsung, JBL, Polk, and more by Sayan Sen Yesterday we covered the JBL BAR 800 which is a 5.1.2 Dolby Atmos/Vision soundbar. The unit is on sale for its lowest ever price of just $800 making it a solid offer. However, there are many more options to choose from and in this article, we have made a compilation of the best deals including from Sony, Polk, Yamaha, Denon, Samsung and more. Sony's BAR models are currently at their lowest prices which makes them solid offerings. The company's BRAVIA Theatre Bar lineup is designed to suit different home cinema needs. The Bar 5 is an entry-level 3.1-channel soundbar with a wireless subwoofer, supporting Dolby Atmos®, DTS:X, S-Force PRO Front Surround, and Vertical Surround Engine for immersive audio with clear dialogue. The Bar 6 upgrades to a 3.1.2-channel configuration by adding dedicated up-firing speakers for more convincing overhead Atmos effects while retaining the wireless subwoofer. At the premium end, the Bar 7, Bar 8, and flagship Bar 9 are single-soundbar solutions featuring Sony’s 360 Spatial Sound Mapping technology, which creates phantom speakers for a wider surround field. Bar 7 includes nine speaker units, Bar 8 increases this to eleven, and Bar 9 offers thirteen speaker driver units promising the most expansive soundstage and acoustic performance. All models should integrate seamlessly with compatible BRAVIA TVs and support the BRAVIA Connect app for setup and control. Get them at the links below: Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 9 Soundbar (HT-A9000): $998.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $1498) Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 8 Soundbar (HT-A9000): $798.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $998) Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 7 Soundbar (HT-A7100): $618.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $768) Sony BRAVIA Theater System 6: $548.00 | Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 6: $448.00 Sony BRAVIA Theater Bar 5 (HT-B500): $278.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $348) Sony HT-S400 2.1 soundbar: $198.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $248) Aside from those, we also have more discounts including from Samsung, Polk Audio, and more: Samsung Q-Series Soundbar HW-QS90H 7.1.2: $797.99 (Amazon US) (Was: $998) Polk Audio Signa S4: $336.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $449) Hisense AX3120Q: $229.00 (Amazon US) (Was: $259) Check out more soundbar deals that you may like at this link. Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Stellarium 26.2 by Razvan Serea Stellarium is a free open source planetarium for your computer. It shows a realistic sky in 3D, just like what you see with the naked eye, binoculars or a telescope. It is being used in planetarium projectors. Just set your coordinates and go. Stellarium key features: Realistic simulation of the sky, sunrise and sunset Default catalogue of over 600,000 stars Downloadable additional catalogues for up to 210 million stars Catalog data for all New General Catalogue (NGC) objects Images of almost all Messier objects and the Milky Way Artistic illustrations for all 88 modern constellations More than a dozen different cultures with their constellations Solar and lunar eclipse simulation Photorealistic landscapes (more are available on the website) Scripting support with ECMAScript (a few demo scripts are included) Extendable with plug-ins: 8 plug-ins installed by default, including: artificial satellites plug-in (updated from an on-line TLE database) ocular simulation plug-in (shows how objects look like in a given ocular) Solar System editor plug-in (imports comet and asteroid data from the MPC) telescope control plug-in (Meade LX200 and Celestron NexStar compatible) The major changes of this version: Added new sky culture Added new plugin: Planes Many improvements in plugins Many improvements in Core and GUI Many updates in sky cultures. [full release notes] Download: Stellarium 26.2 (64-bit) | 456.0 MB (Open Source) View: Stellarium Home Page | Other Operating Systems | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      418
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!