Modern Warfare 2

The sequel to the megapopular Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2 comes out in a little over a week on November 10th.

As discussed in the promising upcoming games thread, I’ve been more excited about this game than any in recent memory. I’m usually not a big fan of the quasi-realistic arcade shooter, but COD4 just managed to be consistently fun, and this is basically more of the same but with even more variety.

A pirated copy of the xbox 360 version has already leaked, and I watched a stream of some of the single player. It looks really good - the same feel as COD4 only turned up a notch.
The rest of this post will be a rant about IW’s decision to fuck the PC multiplayer, so if you’re not interested in that feel free to skip the rest of the post and discuss whatever you want about the game.

Unfortunately MW2 went from the game I was ready to purchase the moment it came out to something I’m not considering buying at all in one move. I’ll have to see how bad it is before I buy it.

They decided to use console-style matchmaking with listen servers like the consoles use instead of a traditional, unambiguously preferred and successful dedicated server/server browser model used by every successful PC shooter game of the last, oh, 13 years or so.

If you don’t understand what that means, this guy explains it in these videos.. I think he actually undersells the points - it’s probably going to be worse than he warns.

Console players will be unaffected because - well, quite frankly, this is the same crappy system that you’re used to for everything, so it seems normal to you. I’m trying not to sound too elitist, but if console multiplayer is the extent of your experience then you don’t know what you’re missing.

On consoles, my understanding (I’ve never owned a shooter for consoles although I’ve played on other people’s systems) is that you basically hit “find multiplayer game” and it randomly plunks you down into a game, regardless of your preferences of game type, maps, rules, etc. This server is hosted on the xbox on one of the people playing the game - so if they live far away from you, or if their internet connection isn’t great (and the average connection isn’t), or they’re using their bandwidth for something else, you get a crappy, laggy server. The actual host gets a good deal, since now they have no latency to their own system, they have an advantage over everyone else who is remotely connecting and lagging. And when the host decides to leave a game or shut off his computer - boom, the game is dead, and you start over.

Dedicated server infrastructure puts servers in data centers that have massive bandwidth to properly handle internet gaming. Residential internet service is usually great for downloading stuff, but the upload limitations are usually fairly severe and that’s what matters when hosting a server. Most people simply do not have the upload capacity to host anything more than a 6 or 8 player server, and then it may be laggy and poor quality. Hosted servers in data centers, on the other hand, are designed to upload huge amounts of data and use very fast computers that are dedicated to hosting the server, rather than an underpowered xbox trying to both run the game and run a server at the same time.

Dedicated servers give you lots of options in customization. You can run custom mods or maps, but even if not - even if you stick to the stock game, you can tweak a lot in the way of game types, map rotation, time and frag limits, custom rules like which perks or weapons your server does not allow, behavior that your server does not allow, etc.

This leads to dedicated servers forming communities. Since they’re around 24/7 7 days a week, unlike the console version where servers come and go as people open and close their game, like-minded people tend to form groups on these servers. There are servers where the rules gear towards “tactical” gameplay where people are asked/required to act mostly realistically, rather than running around like crazy and bunnyhopping. There are servers that cater to a more adult/non-obnoxious-retard crowd by having the administrators boot and ban people for obnoxious behavior. I have maybe a dozen servers saved to my cod4 favorites list because I know I like how they’re run - I like the custom rules they have, I like how they’re administered, I know they are fast and reliable, I know they’ll have game modes and maps that I like, and I may even see the same people during repeat playings because they also are looking for the same sort of thing I am.

This model has worked great for as long as internet gaming has been around. It benefits the developer/publisher greatly because the users are paying for these servers to host the game, and it builds the community which keeps the game alive longer and boosts post-release sales. It works great for the server operator because they can create the type of game world they want to play in, and administer it to ensure that other people comply. It works great for the player because they have a choice in finding a high speed, high quality server with settings and rules that they like, and there are thousands of potential servers to choose from. It’s great for groups of people because clans have their home servers to recruit and play and they have servers they can lock up and keep private to face off other clans in organized competitions.

Now instead of having my choice of hundreds or thousands of always-on, fast and smooth servers with a variety of settings and rules to choose from, I’m just going to get randomly thrown into a game where I have to hope the host has a decent internet connection, decent computer, isn’t torrenting porn in the background, and doesn’t decide to leave while I’m having fun, while I have to suffer from a laggy crappy server that can’t even host that many people (in COD4 you can have 48 man servers with no lag - in MW2 it’ll be hard to host 16 players, and it’ll be with painful lag).

Every single shooter type game that has launched with anything but a dedicated server/server browser format has died a quick death. Recent examples include Frontlines: Fuel of War, Operation Flashpoint 2, and Gears of War. All were released with console-style listen servers, and all were pretty much dead on arrival when the multiplayer community never took off because that model of multiplayer is so clearly obviously inferior that no one wants to play on it. Two of those games later tried to release dedicated servers to correct their mistake, but by then it was too late.

The backlash against Infinity Ward is huge on this one. There’s an online petition with over 170,000 signatures as of now demanding dedicated servers. Pretty much every gaming blog or discussion site is full of people who are outraged. IW went from one of the community’s favorite publishers to one of the most hated with this single move. Many many preorders were cancelled.

Why are they even doing it? They claim their method will prevent piracy, but that’s unclear at this point. Pirates are pretty resourceful. The best way to combat piracy IMO is to have an online component that’s wildly popular and requires authentication, it’ll make people want to buy your game for that. If you screw up your multiplayer, people are just going to say “well, it’s pretty much just a single player game anyway, so I’m just going to pirate it and get the full experience” and so this may actually lead to increased piracy.

They also claim that they’re doing this for the casual gamer - a person who apparently cannot operate a simple server browser where you can sort and filter by many criteria to find a game you’d like. If someone is so clueless that they can’t figure out how to operate a cod4 style server browser, they’re not going to be playing the game on the PC platform anyway. But even that idea is bullshit, because that has already been covered by systems like Battlefield 2’s, where you have a full on dedicated server/browser model, but there was also a “quick play” button that would find you a good server that you had a good connection to automatically. If they’re so concerned with someone that’s mystified by a server browser (and if you have to wonder if this person was able to put their pants on all by themselves) then they could simply add an automatic quick join function in addition to the traditional model.

I could say laziness is a factor, but I doubt it. It simply doesn’t require that much effort to release a dedicated server program, because the code is all already developed, you just have to spin it off into an indepedent program.

The big one here may be DLC. Traditionally PC gamers do not pay for DLC and when multiplatform games offer it, the PC version gets it for free. In COD4 the map pack was a free upgrade. But I suspect with their method of content control, and the fact that they’re preventing anyone from making custom maps or mods means that IW becomes the only source for new content, and now they can force people to buy it. I’m not opposed to businesses making money, obviously - but when they intentionally cripple a customer’s product so that they can milk them for even more, then that’s deserving of consumer revolt.

I can only hope they rectify their mistake and give us traditional, superior multiplayer before the community dies very quickly after release.

Holy shit you bitch a lot. Really, you’ll be fine. You’ll get the game and love it because it’ll be the same thing as Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty 5.

I’m only worried about multiplayer’s weapon balance. When I played Call of Duty 4, there were only a handful of weapons used. Call of Duty 5 was better about it. I assume that the weapons will be more useful and situational this time around. Treyarch was better about making multiplayer maps, but I’d like to see what Infinity Ward has up their sleeve this time around.

Also, as far as host leaving and taking the game with him, that happens in Gears of War and Call of Duty 4 and 5. Halo doesn’t suffer from the same thing; it picks out the next best host. Call of Duty 3 handled host switching in literally two seconds and was fantastic in that regard.

People have every right to bitch. I play World at War currently, and I usually won’t play with a server of less than 20 people. Now I should be happy with a laggy 6 vs 6 game? Not to mention trying to find a decent game in the midwest where I am.

Also, I like that the servers have steady communities. I go to a server, see players I know or clans I like to play against, and it’s fun. I have a choice on what type of game to play, what map, who I play against, all of it.

Activision wants us to pay more to get a crippled version of what players are used to. Hell, they weren’t even going to say anything about it until Robert Bowling accidentally let it slip in a podcast. Since then they have pretty much maintained a wall of silence in regards to any details or explanations. Essentially players have been told, “Buy it and try it. Trust us.”

So no, it’s not the same thing as CoD 4 or 5. It’s a limited version of what we are used to on the pc. The idea that players should blindly swallow bad changes in a franchise is foolish.

No, it really won’t. You have no idea how shitty listen server multiplayer is. The multiplayer community is going to die. COD4 still has tens of thousands of active players at any given time 2 years later - MW2 is going to be nearly dead within a month.

PC Gamers have suffered a lot in the last 3 or 4 years with the dumbing down and feature death of codeveloped games. This one fundamentally breaks a major component in the game. We should not shut up and take it.

Infinity Ward is taking several consol-ization steps at once with the PC version of MW2.

The first (and often overlooked) is the $10 price hike to put the price in line with the console versions. I don’t have a big problem with that, as PC games have been $50 on release forever, so a price hike eventually had to happen.

But to make PC gamers pay $10 more for their version and get LESS of a game pisses me off. Dedicated servers were what made multiplayer PC shooters fun. Gimping the game with listen servers and small numbers of players will mean less people playing.

As you also mentioned - here comes paying for DLC. One of the reasons I like playing games on the PC is the mod community. Does IW even remember how a game like Battlefield 2 came to be? A little mod called Desert Combat? Scratch all that new, creative stuff coming from dedicated fans of the game - now you will be forced to pay for the thin gruel that IW deigns to dribble out every quarter.

This game was going to be a launch-day purchase for me. Now, I’m going to wait and see if they loosen up on the mods/dedicated server nonsense.

I agree completely and everything you’ve said is absolutely true. Listen servers are absolute garbage and become progressively more garbage as more people join. Honestly I have no idea why console gamers tolerate the kind of miserable experience many of their shooters (GoW in particular) provide. I’m glad you brought this up - I haven’t really been following it too much. Definitely not going to waste money on it if there aren’t dedicated servers.

Gear of War is a really good example of bad console matchmaking. The host advantage is so great, too.

I’m excited for this game. I use my console (PS3) for shooters and my computer for strategy games. One thing I wish they’d change on the multiplayer side for consoles (I don’t know how they do it on pcs) is the matchmaking. I hate, being a lowly private, being in a game where most of the players are 10-15 levels ahead of me, after the game’s been on the market for two days.

I don’t like Call of duty’s ranking system. there’s no rank number, there’s no TrueSkill, there’s nothing. Day 1 of Call of Duty 4, I played online and went against someone else that was already on his first Prestige level. That’s not right. I also don’t like how everything is unlockable if you play the game enough. You could be the worst player in the world, but with brute force and getting enough luck, you’ll unlock everything. Makes no sense to me.

All I can say is thanks for the Head ups.

I was looking forward to picking this up pretty early, but if that’s the multi-player system I won’t be buying.

As the Op says, one of the good things about CoD5 that has kept me playing it since it’s release is finding the good servers with the good mods/rules that I enjoy.

And even though I don’t get deeply invovled in the on line community of the game, having a little bit of recognition from players on those servers is good.

This added to the fact that the game in Australia is apparently going to retail at $120 AUD!! I’m sorry did you not notice the exchange rate had changed just a bit in the last 2-3 months? it’s now >90 cents in the dollar. That’s some mighty fine profit gouging there. But that’s a different rant.

Does anything know how popular CoD2 is these days? I know it was huge in its time, but I assume it is making a comeback after World at War and this. Do I need to buy it?

I’d say it’s not popular at all. Good game and all, but really, who in the hell plays it anymore when there are better games to play?

No lean, No lean!

Apparently the maps aren’t balanced for lean so they just didn’t include it. This is the same engine as CoD4 the code for lean is in there somewhere it just gets removed for the console versions. IW apparently can’t even change a bit of code when porting to the PC, at least we have mouse control as a special PC feature.

A whole bunch of dissapointment from yesterdays interview, see here:
Transcript of PC questions from Best Buy interview.

100ms ping, for a PC shooter, and that is IW testing in the US. Those of us elsewhere in the world are going to be quadrupily fucked.

They have the worst forum software ever.

Yikes.

They were being vague intentionally on their system. I was hoping that they were going to unroll their own dedicated servers to run the game, rather than trying the horrible HAS NEVER WORKED SATISFACTORILY BEFORE EVER AND HAS KILLED EVERY GAME THAT EVER TRIED TO USE IT listen server model. But this makes it clear that that’s their plan.

…Lol?
It seems implied from this that the biggest match you can have in game is 9 vs 9. Which I guess makes sense given that their shitty retarded system can’t be expected to reliably support even that many players, but it’s a pretty huge dissapointment after I had a lot of fun on the bigger maps playing 24 vs 24.

There’s apparently also no way to kick disruptive/cheating people, not even vote kick.

At this point I’m hoping the pirate community can reverse engineer the game to create a dedicated server. I would have no hesitation paying my $60 for this game until I learned about this - and now I’m desperately hoping pirates/homebrew coders save the day. It wouldn’t be the first time pirates delivered a superior product due to stupid developer decisions crippling the software of legitimate users.

I am honestly utterly baffled by this. I think they actually put in more effort to make the game way worse, with no upside whatsoever. I just don’t get it. What do their gain by this? They get nothing but disatisfied fanbase who loved them a few weeks ago and hates them with a burning rage now.

I feel your pain.

I ran a dedicated server for several games back in the day, (Quakeworld, Action Quake, Counter Strike, UT) and it allowed me and my friends a place to play the game we liked with the settings we liked. We even allowed friendly fire, since we could simply ban anyone who couldn’t behave. The great ping was a nice perk, too.

As I’ve become less ‘hardcore’ about maximizing my gaming experience, I’ve pretty much migrated towards consoles, always recognizing that I was sacrificing a little of the gameplay for the convenience and low cost of console gaming.

Based on what I’ve heard about MW2, it doesn’t look like the PC version will be any better except graphically… Weak. I hope for the sake of the still-hardcore that this isn’t a sign of things to come. The hardcore should still have a place to play.

You don’t need to be a hardcore gamer to appreciate why dedicated server models are massively, unambiguously superior. The only people that won’t think this is a big deal or notice are people who have never played a high quality multiplayer experience in the first place.

Even ignoring the community building/customization/etc stuff I covered earlier, it’s going to be a huge technical failure. 9 vs 9 max sucks, and anything over 4v4 will probably be a laggy mess unless there’s an unusually good player/host around. The quality of the server will go up and down depending on the quality of the player/host’s ISP connection. Someone turn on the microwave and send the host’s wireless signal screwy? Woops, whole server lags/disconnects. Host leaves their torrent client open in the background? Woops, massively warpy server. Host gets annoyed and rage quits? Woops, server gone. ISPs decide to enforce the “no servers for our residential service” clause in their contracts? Woops, no one can host a game now. Someone is hacking or acting in a disruptive or annoying way? No one can kick them now.

In COD4, I pretty much always have a lag free experience even if I’m playing a match with 24 vs 24. My ping is typically under 50. The server is rock solid all the way through, and you can’t even really tell that you’re not playing on a LAN. With this new system, the qualtiy of the server is going to vary randomly and wildly, average ping will be much higher since people have no choice about what they’re joining and home connections aren’t as good as a data center connection. The number of players a given server/host can support while remaining playable will vary with the quality of people’s connections, and even under ideal circumstances, only supports a max of 18 players.

I haven’t played PC shooters in quite some time but isn’t there a cost associated with maintaining dedicated servers and the bandwidth required to manage the, certainly huge, number of players for a release this hottly anticipated? I’m guessing that the cost is non-neglible.

I’m sure the money they’ll lose from you and your kind not buying the game will pale in comparision to the savings from not running dedicated servers.

Now if you were willing to PAY for server access then I could get on board.

No, game developers/publishers typically do not host their own servers to run a game. They release their dedicated server program so that people with the inclination and resources will run the servers for them. The community pays for the servers - whoever wants to host their own server either runs the dedicated server program on some computer with a beefy internet connection, or more commonly (I think) pays rent for the server from a company that professionally hosts them. Either way it’s the community setting up the servers, not the developers or publisher.

This model has worked fabulously for games for as long as internet gaming exists. The developer/publisher doesn’t incur costs to run servers for people to play on, and people are willing to pay to create their own place to play with their own community/rules/settings/friends. And users get thousands of high-quality servers with different communities, rules, and settings to choose from. Everyone wins. Which is why every successful game in the history of this type of game has used this model, and all that have tried to do anything differently have died a quick death.

This approach actually would seem to cost them more, both in terms of running servers that will do matchmaking for people, and because it takes more development time to do this. They are actually going out of their way to put in more effort into making a change that the community universally hates.

There is zero cost to IW or Activision they pay nothing towards dedicated servers, and they never hosted them in the first place. They release the server files to the community and other people pay for the server space to host. In fact IW.net is going to cost them more than the old system because they now have to pay someone to create and then maintain the IW.net servers.

And as for charging for use of the servers that won’t work unless the company has servers all over the world. No one outside the US is going to pay when they have to play on US servers with massive lag. And pay to play would only work as long as the competition didn’t offer free multiplayer i their games.

There -is- an argument in favor of this approach in terms of cost. They have to do a garbage networking model like this anyway, for the console versions. I’m not aware of any ability for consoles to reach out into the net at large and hit up servers for their multiplayer, so a proper networking model becomes a PC-only item. Given the amusing statement quoted upthread, about the mouse control and text chat, it’s obvious that they consider doing a PC release at all to be a gracious favor, and not something they intend to spend any actual time on. So, they save some development time by cutting the networking.

The problem with that point of view is that given the scale of the franchise and likely sales of the game, and their obvious interest in building a long-running brand, there’s almost no way that this can do anything but hurt them in the long-term bottom line. The only way it makes any sense at all is if you assume that the PC platform is an irrelevant dead end in video gaming.