MW2: No Dedicated Servers, No Mods


Recommended Posts

Hence the "ban" on mods for MW2. If everyone plays the same game without any server tricks, server calculus is not needed. IMO they wouldn't release something that didn't work.

Just to be clear, I don't agree with them taking out dedicated server support. I just think people are overreacting a bit.

I've played CoD4 on XBox Live P2P without lag so it's perfectly possible to do it on the PC too.

Mods are great. Denying that really hurts the scope of the multiplayer aspect. Some games like UT99 and CS 1.6 are played even today due to their vibrant community of modders and without that this game will only last until the next MW3 is released. And I think that is actually their intention to kill a community from growing to large so that they will migrate to the next big release.

I reckon the game will sell well regardless. Most people buying the game wont understand what has happened before they get it or why its relevant to their enjoyment of the games multiplayer.

I'm sure Larry posted a rough estimate for PC sales and it was only just under 400,000.

A lot of the people who buy PC games are a hardcore audience, they know what dedicated servers are, they know what mods are, they know what clans are.

Point being it's a large risk screwing with your potential sales figures on the PC where sales aren't that high as it is.

I'm sure Larry posted a rough estimate for PC sales and it was only just under 400,000.

A lot of the people who buy PC games are a hardcore audience, they know what dedicated servers are, they know what mods are, they know what clans are.

Point being it's a large risk screwing with your potential sales figures on the PC where sales aren't that high as it is.

Only 400,000 Sales of Call of Duty MW:1 for PC or Preorders for Call of Duty MW:2?

Cause I know that Call of Duty 4 sold 17 Million units combined (Consoles + PC)

Only 400,000 Sales of Call of Duty MW:1 for PC or Preorders for Call of Duty MW:2?

Cause I know that Call of Duty 4 sold 17 Million units combined (Consoles + PC)

Sales for MW:1.

Ughhh 17 million? Last figure from Activision was 13 million in May this year, I doubt it's sold 4 million since then (most sales are front loaded).

Only 400,000 Sales of Call of Duty MW:1 for PC or Preorders for Call of Duty MW:2?

Cause I know that Call of Duty 4 sold 17 Million units combined (Consoles + PC)

I could not find a true total sales, but I did find this...

Of the 7 million copies, about 3.04 million sold were for the Xbox 360. According to the data, only 383,000 copies for the PC were purchased, but that does not take into consideration digital distribution sales via platforms like STEAM.

So STEAM is not taken into account either, but if you stick to that percentage of ths first 7 million copies sold, then it is still a pretty low number of the 17 million.

I could not find a true total sales, but I did find this...

So STEAM is not taken into account either, but if you stick to that percentage of ths first 7 million copies sold, then it is still a pretty low number of the 17 million.

That is pretty poor considering how many people pirated it from my post earlier in the thread. From just 3 separate torrents on a single site it was almost 1Million completed illegal downloads.

You can see why developers are focusing less and less on the PC. Harder to make your game support all that different hardware and the sales aren't that great and piracy. Whilst a console is well 1 system which makes it a lot easier to write the game for one piece of non-changing hardware, no piracy on the PS3 and very little on the 360.

As an avid PC gamer I feel kinda sad about the state of the industry. I may actually have to get an XBOX360 at this rate. I really wanna play Army of Two but without a PC port ..

If we can get an exact number on Final Sales, will be pretty easy to figure out how many PC copies were sold...

PS3 = 4.66m

360 = 7.83m

So both consoles = 12.49

All sales figures compliments http://www.vgchartz.com/

According to this page: http://www.unigamesity.com/call-of-duty-4-...online-players/

“I’m delighted that we just reached 11 million unique players on Xbox Live and we’ve got over 4 million on PSN,” Bowling said, according to Eurogamer sources.

The numbers are impressive, having in mind that there are 17 million Xbox Live users – probably this would make COD4 one of the most successful games ever. Which, to be honest, is not a huge surprise, after all…

That would make it 15 Million on Consoles alone. And I did read I think it was on Kotaku where a game designer of CoD4 said it had sold 17 Million total. It was recent.

According to this page: http://www.unigamesity.com/call-of-duty-4-...online-players/

That would make it 16 Million on Consoles alone. And I did read I think it was on Kotaku where a game designer of CoD4 said it had sold 17 Million total. It was recent.

That's players, not sales.... Multiple PSN/Live accounts can play on the one console with the one disc, which in return logs as a unique play.

I'm not saying it again, I've already posted official sales from Activision on the last page, and reiterated them in the post above you. 13 million :p

That's players, not sales.... Multiple PSN/Live accounts can play on the one console.

I'm not saying it again, I've already posted official sales from Activision on the last page, and reiterated them in the post above you. 13 million :p

Did you even read my post? I clearly stated in your own quote that a game designer said to Kotaku recently that it has sold 17 Million copies to date. After ur numbers were posted.

Did you even read my post? I clearly stated in your own quote that a game designer said to Kotaku recently that it has sold 17 Million copies to date. After ur numbers were posted.

Well post a link then to this Kotaku article claiming 17 million sales.

I'd rather believe the CEO of the company stating 13 million in a financial report.

Even VGchartz which isn't the most reliable site, but does base estimates off tangible numbers says 12.5 million console sales, as Larry pointed out on the page before. You're trying to tell me 4 million sales on the PC? Yea right :p

Yeah for now I am going to go with the 13 million copies sold since it is something we can reference in a document online, so if you go according to that, that means approximately 510,000 copies were sold on the PC since the consoles were 12.49 million. While not really chump change in the grand scheme of things, it is indeed not enough for them to truly care about the PC version, which as I stated before I think they make that crystal clear that is the case with this move.

Yeah for now I am going to go with the 13 million copies sold since it is something we can reference in a document online, so if you go according to that, that means approximately 510,000 copies were sold on the PC since the consoles were 12.49 million. While not really chump change in the grand scheme of things, it is indeed not enough for them to truly care about the PC version, which as I stated before I think they make that crystal clear that is the case with this move.

The ironic thing though is you're saying they don't care about the PC version but will spend the time to develop this proprietary Battle Net system or whatever it's called, and implement a matchmaking system, something devs on consoles still have headaches with.... instead of allowing other companies to host dedicated servers day 1 and completely remove any chance of teething issues.

Something tells me more effort goes into doing what they're doing, so therefore the motive is money based out of locking down the game to sell DLC, or at least consider the potential to, as they have all the time in the world to think about it whilst pc owners can't make mods/maps.

It's all about completely closing the game down, something that goes against everything that is PC. Heck even console games this generation are starting to move forward into user generated content territory.... which makes this even funnier.

Well post a link then to this Kotaku article claiming 17 million sales.

I'd rather believe the CEO of the company stating 13 million in a financial report.

Even VGchartz which isn't the most reliable site, but does base estimates off tangible numbers says 12.5 million console sales, as Larry pointed out on the page before. You're trying to tell me 4 million sales on the PC? Yea right :p

The only thing I can find is the Account thing so I was mistaken. And 13 Million seems logical based on the time of the conference call to now. They only sold 3 million from June 2008 to May 2009 so they obviously aren't going to hit 17 Million in only a few months.

The ironic thing though is you're saying they don't care about the PC version but will spend the time to develop this proprietary Battle Net system or whatever it's called, and implement a matchmaking system, something devs on consoles still have headaches with.... instead of allowing other companies to host dedicated servers day 1 and completely remove any chance of teething issues.

Something tells me more effort goes into doing what they're doing, so therefore the motive is money based out of locking down the game to sell DLC, or at least consider the potential to, as they have all the time in the world to think about it whilst pc owners can't make mods/maps.

It's all about completely closing the game down, something that goes against everything that is PC. Heck even console games this generation are starting to move forward into user generated content territory.... which makes this even funnier.

Well where me and you are going to have to agree to disagree, and I could be totally wrong, but all IWNet (which I do think is the name but could be wrong) sounds like to me is a very, very similar way to how they they do it on the consoles right now. So I would imagine it is in fact the exact opposite, that it is going to cost them much less money to implement than it would to put a team dedicated towards helping on the creation of tools for modding and patching the PC version, etc. which would be needed if their were indeed dedicated servers in the mix.

So what I mean is while it may be it's own system, I believe it is going to be so based on the current system that it would not require much more, in fact if any more, resources than if they left it all open with dedicated servers. That is just my hunch, as I do believe all things such as this are considered in the meeting room when making such a decision. This is how I envision the conversation might have went down...

Guy In Suit 1 - So someone was talking about maybe making the PC MP just like the console MP, what does this mean for the bottom line?

Guy In Suit 2 - Well our team tells us that because the system is indeed so much like the one on the 360, it is not going to take that much time or resources to create it for the computer.

Guy In Suit 1 - Well that sounds great, but how much more is it going to cost as to maintain this service on the PC if we do implement it?

Guy In Suit 2 - Actually, we will save money in the long run since the same team can maintain the service across all 3 platforms, and getting rid of the old way on the PC means we will not have to dedicate team members and resources to mantaining that community.

Guy In Suit 1 - Sounds good. Do It.

Where we do definitely 110% agree though is I without a doubt also believe it is also about closing it all down so they control all content. No argument from there, so they can make even more potential money if possible, but I would not be surprised if DLC for PC still remains free TBH. I think they look at it as that much of a non factor at this point.

Well where me and you are going to have to agree to disagree, and I could be totally wrong, but all IWNet (which I do think is the name but could be wrong) sounds like to me is a very, very similar way to how they they do it on the consoles right now. So I would imagine it is in fact the exact opposite, that it is going to cost them much less money to implement than it would to put a team dedicated towards helping on the creation of tools for modding and patching the PC version, etc. which would be needed if their were indeed dedicated servers in the mix.

So what I mean is while it may be it's own system, I believe it is going to be so based on the current system that it would not require much more, in fact if any more, resources than if they left it all open with dedicated servers. That is just my hunch, as I do believe all things such as this are considered in the meeting room when making such a decision.

Where we do definitely 110% agree though is I without a doubt also believe it is also about closing it all down so they control all content. No argument from there, so they can make even more potential money if possible, but I would not be surprised if DLC for PC still remains free TBH. I think they look at it as that much of a non factor at this point.

But Larry you seem to be forgetting COD4 for the PC had mod tools and dedicated servers, instead of going through the effort of porting a console based system to the PC, they'd just be sending out the same tools from COD4. Both games are based on the engine IW 4.0 right? With MW2 having some upgrades obviously to the existing engine. I seriously doubt the tools though are all that different, and they already have the dedicated back end in place from COD4.

Where as now they're putting out this IWNet in a completely under par/basic form and saying in the future they may be able to work on it to include custom content (yeah right). If anything that shows it's underdeveloped for PC needs, where as just doing what they did with COD4 wouldn't be underdeveloped.

It's all conjecture though as we don't know financials, and at least I have no knowledge/experience with game making, so we'll just need to agree to disagree :p I just wanted to add the above as I truly think there wouldn't be much changed needed from the online system COD4 has in place to CODMW2 due to them being on the same engine, albeit it's upgraded/tweaked.

I really think it's just about locking the game down, not trying to make it cheaper, which is why I think it's even a possibility the new system has cost a bit more than just doing MW2 like COD4. Without dedicated servers it also locks out the potential for those "cracked" servers you see, therefore probably stopping pirates getting online completely - Not seen many people think of that yet.

Edited by Audioboxer
Yeah for now I am going to go with the 13 million copies sold since it is something we can reference in a document online, so if you go according to that, that means approximately 510,000 copies were sold on the PC since the consoles were 12.49 million. While not really chump change in the grand scheme of things, it is indeed not enough for them to truly care about the PC version, which as I stated before I think they make that crystal clear that is the case with this move.

Do any of those sales numbers include digital purchases? If not I bet you could at least double the number of PC sales.

I was just at my local gamestop well one of the 10, but anyways the manager there told me in the system he looked up there is alredy over 100,000 canceled cod mw2 placed today so far company wide.

He even said they expect many more cancels on the pc version over the next week. He also said at this current rate it could reach over a million cancels company wide before this comming friday.

My gamestop manager being a pc gamer himself said he had no idea why IW would go away from dedicated servers and no mods since mods was the thing that made cod4 the big selling game it is to date.

figured i would just update you on that so if there is already that many canceled copies just thru gamestop, imagine worldwide and how many millions of dollars IW is going to lose.

IW FTL!

Game over, and I am very sad to see this with all the hype now going to console only gamers.

Regardless I will never play console games and I will not buy pc games from activision anymore personally

(from here)

:|

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My issue is I can't access the forum on mobile if the site is set to Desktop mode on Vivaldi because it can't complete the Cloud flare am I a bot check! I know this is a Vivaldi issues as it has started happening on all cloud flare check sites, it's so annoying, I've reported it but no fix yet.
    • Are you going to do performance benchmarks comparing all states? I'd be interested in seeing that in the next "part".
    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      rolfus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      78
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!