Modern Warfare 2 Shows How To Piss Off Fans

from the reasons-not-to-buy dept

Mon, Nov 9th 2009 4:02am — Mike Masnick

william was the first of a few of you to send in this story about how Infinity Ward seems to have decided to piss off a bunch of fans of the upcoming Modern Warfare 2 by not allowing dedicated game servers, limiting the number of players for PC-based multiplayer games and other limiting features. In one telling quote, one of the game's designers was asked about whether or not a certain feature would be enabled to allow players to change their field of view, and was told:

We would like you to play the game the way we designed and balanced it.

Now, that's fair enough, but if those fans don't want to play the game that way, they're not going to play it at all.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fans, games, modern warfare 2

99 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Cynix, 9 Nov 2009 @ 4:10am

I'm boycotting it and I loved CoD4.

When they start intentionally limiting even totally non-controversial stuff like FoV, then you know that something is very wrong with the company and shouldn't touch their products, in order to discourage them and others from propagating this shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2009 @ 6:26pm
  
  Re:
  his response stating "We would like you to play the game the way we designed and balanced it." the question before also regarded changing the damage dealt by weapons
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ethorad (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 4:35am

I can see a reason to give users the ability to lock down certain options. If something affects your in-game ability/skill then for multiplayer sessions you would want to give the person setting up the game the ability to lock down certain things. I don't play the MW games, so I don't know if FoV comes into that heading but if for example there was an option to change your run speed that certainly would.

Of course, that's just a reason why you'd want to give people the option to turn it off for multiplayer. Can't see any reason why you'd have it permanently turned off ...

Why not enable the option, collect stats on it (assuming you're able to without having privacy issues), and then use that information to inform you about which settings are popular and therefore which settings to focus on when "balancing" MW3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barrett, 9 Nov 2009 @ 4:43am

For offline play adjusting FOV would be ok... but online it is a cheat, pure and simple, and any options that can be 'tweaked' to give an advantage will be abused to death and should be locked down tight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:09am
  
  Re:
  Any kind of advantage that can be done by one person can be done by another. If you have problems playing in the limited FOV than maybe you should try widening it. Or you could accept that you suck at the game and just have fun like games are intended to be.
  
  And to j2dude99, if you really want to boycott this, don't even download it. That still legitimizes any kind of limitation they feel to implement. Don't buy it, don't download it, don't even talk about it. Just let it die.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Chronno:
    
    Yep, you get it. Whining about a game is just part of "buzz" that makes more people get the game (including purchasing it) to see what the fuss is about.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:49am
  
  Re:
  You obviously don't own a widescreen monitor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kingster (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:12am
    
    Re: Re: [widescreen/FOV]
    Just because one has a widescreen doesn't give one the "right" to run a bigger FOV. My response to widescreen whiners as a game server admin that has control over those things has always been to "scale your monitor if you want". That way it fills to the side edges, but guess what, you lose some of the top and bottom edge views. Not everyone has a widescreen, and so therefore, there should be no reason to allow you an unfair advantage.
    
    That said, there are plenty of other servers out there. You'll find one that may even announce an expanded FOV. Or, hey... YOU COULD TAKE ON THE COST YOURSELF.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re: [widescreen/FOV]
      You can't even buy a 4:3 monitor nowadays. Every laptop is widescreen and I haven't seen a 4:3 offered at a store in quite a while.
      
      What about people with 5.1 speakers? Should the center and surround be disables so those with only stereo have a fair chance too? I can hear people sneaking up behind me with multichannel speakers, and in fact that option is more of a boon than the extra FOV.
      
      My mouse has the ability to toggle the sensitivity, should those options be disabled too?
      
      They aren't going to sell games by catering to the lowest common denominator. They need to make the game enjoyable by everyone. That's what people like me want, the ability to play games on our shiny hardware. We are enthusiasts.
      
      And let's not forget the console versions. Does the game screw people over with HDTV because there are some people with standard TVs?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: [widescreen/FOV]
        What about people with two monitors (like me) or 4 or 6? What about people with the crazy powerful systems? The high frame rate and low lag times are a huge advantage over those who don't have the money. What about people with FiOs or Cable compared to people with DSL or even Dial up?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kingster (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [widescreen/FOV]
        Framerates and lag times are compensated for with "tick rates", the speed that the server pushes the information to you. You can crank your frame rates and have the fastest connection in the world, but you are only going to get that chunk of data from or to the server at, lets say for the sake of argument, 5 times a second, or whatever the game server operator has determined as best for their server and for their server population. When you're attached to a server, the server has control over things, like max FOV, tickrates, etc. Most games still allow you to "set" them on your side, but they don't have any effect in a server-attached game. Apparently, you've never run a dedicated server. All IW has done is remove the capacity for you to "think" you controlled it when attached to a server.
        
        So, what about you people with 2 monitors? Goody for you. Go buy 2 more and then you can still have a 4:3 ratio (if the original two are 4:3). And yes, *all* versions of MW2 are locked to a 65FOV. Consoles (even those attached to HDTVs!)and PCs alike. Why? Because this game wasn't built for PCs. It was built for consoles, many of which are still running on 4:3 ratio screens. PC work (look at all the things that they put into the PC version - Mouse, chat, interactive menus and the ability to choose a chapter? Ooooh!) was an afterthought. This game is simply about consoles.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [widescreen/FOV]
        So, people with wide screen monitors are artificially limited due to some arbitrary sense of fairness.
        
        While I nave never hosted a MW2 server (how many have at this point?), I do understand things like lag time and frame rates. While the server will push the data as a set speed it doesn't work if you're connection is slower than that speed. And the frame rate has nothing to do with connection speed at all. Yet, you have a crappy frame rate, you can't play properly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: [widescreen/FOV]
      BY your logic, PC gamers should have been artificially limited to 640*480 up until a few years ago, to make it 'fair' for consoles.
      
      I play the opposite side of this fallacious argument: You're getting ripped off, because the plain old USB ports on your console won't let you play the games with a keyboard and mouse. Ask the devs why; they'll tell you that the KB/mouse is more accurate.
      
      Holding back the best to normalize the average does not bring the slow kids up to average, it just keeps dragging the average further and further down.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Darren, 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:12am
  
  Re:
  What a rediculous comment. People who use widescreen monitors use a different fov to avoid the game looking stretched. How on earth is that cheating? you make me lol
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2009 @ 5:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    ...because you will be able to view more of the map than other players. If you don't think this is an advantage, you're a noob. Having played fps online for > 10 years I seen and heard it all regarding 'advantages'. The bottom line is: People will use ANYTHING they think can make them a better player. Seen it, been there, done it, game over.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MBraedley (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:31am
  
  Re:
  There are many reasons for wanting to change the FOV in an FPS. For instance, someone who easily fixates on a point won't even notice action happening away from the centre of the screen, and the angle of the FOV isn't a huge concern. OTOH, someone who continuously scans the entire screen will greatly benefit from a larger FOV. Does this mean he's cheating? No, he's just a good player taking advantage of his skill to make him even better. Obviously there should be limits to this. Anything beyond 120 degrees is ridiculous, and the games I've played where there is a selectable FOV have the limits set to 45 degrees for the absolute lowest (some are 60) and 90 or 100 at the high end.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MBraedley (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:38am
  
  Re:
  There are many reasons for wanting to change the FOV in an FPS. For instance, someone who easily fixates on a point won't even notice action happening away from the centre of the screen, and the angle of the FOV isn't a huge concern. OTOH, someone who continuously scans the entire screen will greatly benefit from a larger FOV. Does this mean he's cheating? No, he's just a good player taking advantage of his skill to make him even better. Obviously there should be limits to this. Anything beyond 120 degrees is ridiculous, and the games I've played where there is a selectable FOV have the limits set to 45 degrees for the absolute lowest (some are 60) and 90 or 100 at the high end.
  any options that can be 'tweaked' to give an advantage will be abused to death and should be locked down tight
  So, in addition to not being able to set my FOV so that I don't get an unfair disadvantage from people sniping me high above me and out of view, I have to set my graphics to the level of a Geforce 7600 so that I can't tell where someones head ends and their body begins? I can't use my 5.1 headset because someone might be using a set of mono speakers? Give me a break. Cheating is wall hacks and aim bots, speed mods and damage mods. Not the options that make skilled players better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Barrett, 10 Nov 2009 @ 6:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    First off, setting your GeForce 7600 etc. is amusing since it sounds like a valid point at first but... ask any top player of any online game and they will mostly tell you that they play with graphics settings purposefully turned DOWN. Frames and smoothness is what matters, not how nice the game looks. All those nice visuals are meaningless to a lot of people when playing competitively. And that goes for screen resolution too. It's common to step down a notch to give higher frame rates.
    
    Second, surround sound is simply not that big an advantage over normal stereo. Sorry, but you're not hearing anything the other guy doesn't hear. It's not like you're suddenly getting extra sound info that other's aren't. And if you need 5.1 surround in order to tell where a sound is coming from then... you simply need to get better at the game. Don't even pretend for one second that some extra sound channels are suddenly going to turn you into a 'better' player... because that is pure bs.
    
    "Not the options that make skilled players better."
    More like... an average player seem a little bit better. Like I said, average players will grab at everything they can to stop getting their asses owned online.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Designerfx (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 7:56am
  
  Re:
  console designed games have a horrifically limited FOV. It's not a cheating thing, but it does cause eyestrain on PC's.
  
  Want to know how bad it is? Go take a look at what's going on with boderlands when people have to manually change the FOV. I had to change it from 60 degrees to 130 because it looked *that crappy* without 130.
  
  Just because you can "See to your side" doesn't provide you much of a real benefit - because you would then have to be focused on your sides more than in front and your focus would wane. If you're trying to imply that a 360 degree FOV might be cheating, I'd like to remind you that such a thing looks horrifically awful in a FPS.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2009 @ 6:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    Lol, oh come on now ffs. Of course it provides a benefit. Do you people actually even play FPS online? Seriously? If I can sit and see 2 entry/exit points without moving my view left and right I have less chance of being surprised by an attack from those points? I think that is pretty damn obvious, no?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Barrett., 10 Nov 2009 @ 6:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "you would have to be focused on your sides more than in front and your focus would wane"
      
      Sorry, but this is also laughable. It is one of those points that probably looks good on paper, but in reality is totally wrong. If you cannot take in the whole screen AT ONCE then you're at a disadvantage skillwise. It is these "average" players who do not realise that something like the above is just NORMAL GAMEPLAY behaviour for a good player (ie. scanning whole screen simultaneously.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re:
  You know what else is cheating? Having a better mouse. The game should only allow non-laser non-ergonomic mice to play their game.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perros, 9 Nov 2009 @ 4:57am

Whining
"Now, that's fair enough, but if those fans don't want to play the game that way, they're not going to play it at all."

Of course that would be fine - people can choose not to buy something and then the developers will get the message.

However, what will actually happen is: people will but the game anyway because they want to play it/their friends are playing it. Then they'll spend some additional time moaning and whining on the intertubes. Just making everybody else a little worse off.

-Perros-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff, 9 Nov 2009 @ 4:58am

I am glad I bought l4d2 instead
I suppose no one should buy MW2 till the designers fix the problems. I decided to buy Left4Dead 2 instead.

Valve isn't crazy enough to throw out dedicated game servers, because I am sure they know not everyone can invest their own money into renting servers, and plus, a dedicated game server isn't modded, so it runs the game as it was intended with default settings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Adub, 9 Nov 2009 @ 7:14am
  
  Re: I am glad I bought l4d2 instead
  Valve did throw out dedicated game servers and everyone who plays MW2 has already invested in everything needed to host the game, since the game is hosted by whoever has the lowest ping...similar to XBox Live.
  
  "a dedicated game server isn't modded"
  
  What the what?!?!? Dedicated game servers are certainly modded and the admins are given too much control over the gameplay. Anti-Cheat systems seem to do little to stop players from enabling hacks to take advantage of dedicated servers.
  
  As far as fairness of gameplay....MW2 creates a level playing field. No more mods, no more tweaks to benefit a chosen few on a dedicated server. They are obviously going for better online experience and people are lined up to buy it. If you dont like it, dont play it...or better yet, go play a few rounds of Counter-Strike with someone that has all kinds of cheats enabled and kills you thru walls...it sucks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 7:39am
    
    Re: Re: I am glad I bought l4d2 instead
    That's not true. What Valve game skips dedicated servers?
    
    Don't say L4D because it still uses dedicated servers even if the UI doesn't expose them. People can, and do, access specific dedicated servers through the use of the console.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 8:04am
    
    Re: Re: I am glad I bought l4d2 instead
    You should really do some research before talking out of your ass.
    
    Dedicated servers don't make cheats possible; bugs in the game (not to mention programs that run in the background on the client side) are what players use to cheat.
    
    Sure, admins do have god-like powers over the server. However, you're a fool if you believe that players will continue to play on a server where the admin abuses his/her powers. If I don't like how an admin is running his/her server I'm certainly not going to go back to it.
    
    Admins having control of the server, as well as being able to install mods, sure as hell doesn't hurt games. If anything, it makes them last longer. Do you think people would still be fiddling with Doom and the Quake series if they were under lock and key? Would Unreal Tournament have been half as popular as it was if you couldn't find a plethora of game types and mutators? You mentioned Counter-Strike in your post. Do you know that Counter-Strike was originally a mod for Half-Life?
    
    Mods don't hurt games, they help them. id realizes this. Epic realizes this. Valve realizes this. A *lot* of companies realize this. The fact that Infinity Ward has actually *regressed* just baffles me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Server Admin, 9 Nov 2009 @ 8:33am
  
  Re: I am glad I bought l4d2 instead
  @Jeff "... a dedicated game server isn't modded, so it runs the game as it was intended with default settings."
  
  Not to sound mean... Have you ever ran a dedicated game server before? Sure a dedicated game server is pure when you first install it. However, it by no means is not modifiable. Even the L4D series has server based mods available for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
j2dude99, 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:00am

I'm gonna download this from Torrent and seed all day and night.

I lost all respect for IW and this is how i'm gonna take revenge.

God Bess the pirate bay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dirk Belligerent (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 8:44am
  
  Re:
  This is precisely the wrong response. "I don't like what they're doing, so I'm going to steal it and give it away to teach them a lesson." Big man there. Please.
  
  I LOVED COD4 and was seriously considering buying the PC version this time. I really, really, REALLY want to get this tomorrow, but with all their blind arrogance and contempt for the customers, I have decided to buy a USED copy for the Xbox 360 when they inevitably show up in a few weeks, thus denying Activision and IW one red cent of my money.
  
  Way to fail there, chumps! I get to play the game - LEGALLY! - and you greedy f*ckers make NOTHING off me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff, 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:07am

Shocking? Hardly
Infinity Ward has been pissing off fans since COD2 - this is not new. Their "my way or the highway" attitude has driven off more players than it's attracted over the years. It's unfortunate too, because they're very good at making fun games, but those games get so much better when they fans get involved. It's just too bad they've gotten more and more restrictive over the years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 7:48am
  
  Re: Shocking? Hardly
  I thoroughly enjoyed CoD4. It had just about anything you could want from the PC FPS area. Which included everything they removed from this one.
  I refuse to buy, or even download MW2.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:10am

"if those fans don't want to play the game that way, they're not going to play it at all."

I disagree. They're going to play pirated versions on pirated servers, and then IW will blame the resulting lower sales on the boogeyman of "piracy" rather than their own actions. Then COD:MW3 will have even more restrictions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RogueDeals.com (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:11am

I don't think this stuff is a big deal and am going to play the game and see how I like it for myself.

As with all things, change happens.

The people who develop these games most likely know what the gamer wants because they are probably gamers too (among other reasons including getting feedback from their massive twitter following).

Before I throw my hands up in the air, I'm going to give it a shot. It looks awesome, I'm sure online play will be too. I have faith in the dev team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nate (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:05am
  
  Re:
  The people who develop these games most likely know what the gamer wants because they are probably gamers too (among other reasons including getting feedback from their massive twitter following).
  
  The people who make laws most likely know what the people want because they are probably people too (among other reasons including getting feedback from their massive mail boxes full of letters). I know that's a bad analogy, but the point is that an organization can be out of touch with what people want.
  
  As with all things, change happens.
  
  Yeah, but in this case the changes were bad and IW had full control over what changes it made (they were not the result of random or complicated circumstances). That's not an excuse for making poor decisions.
  
  I'm disappointed about the lack of dedicated servers because I value communities in games I play. Communities without a doubt add to the gaming experience. A game by itself can be fun but being able to play with people you're familiar with as opposed to random people certainly makes the experience more enjoyable. I fail to see why IW made this decision. Was the the normal system was failing? For those who don't value community, they just chose random servers. This goes back to the old saying of "why fix something when it's not broken."
  
  Side thought: One problem (if it is at all) with the old system is team stacking by a group. However, from my experience this has been resolved by admin regulation or by the offended person finding a new server to play on.
  
  Before I throw my hands up in the air, I'm going to give it a shot.
  
  As will I, with hopes that I can still play with online friends (up to 10-15) in the same game.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DS78, 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:12am

Dedicated servers
They're just trying to "consolize" the PC and make it work like the 360. The big thing they crushed when they decided not to make a dedicated server is the competitive play arena for the game and the community thats built around that.

Plenty of people will buy the game and it'll probably sell good on the consoles. Those that buy it on PC are mostly folks who don't understand the difference between a dedicated server and a localhost. It won't be long before the IW servers are full and people are forced into bad ping situations on the PC. Hopefully they'll pummel the IW forums with complaints about ping or the poor gaming experience they're recieving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze, 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:22am
  
  Re: Dedicated servers
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- senshikaze (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:24am
  
  Re: Dedicated servers
  "Those that buy it on PC are mostly folks who don't understand the difference between a dedicated server and a localhost."
  
  Wha-? The people who play on PC know very well the difference. The whole pc fps industry was built off of dedicated servers (bf2? cod4?). that is by far the dumbest statement I have read about this whole snafu.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Overcast (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:04am
    
    Re: Re: Dedicated servers
    "Those that buy it on PC are mostly folks who don't understand the difference between a dedicated server and a localhost."
    
    Wha-? The people who play on PC know very well the difference. The whole pc fps industry was built off of dedicated servers (bf2? cod4?). that is by far the dumbest statement I have read about this whole snafu.
    
    Quake 2 had dedicated servers - first one I recall offhand...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 7:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Dedicated servers
      Quake 1 had dedicated servers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - imbrucy (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:05am
    
    Re: Re: Dedicated servers
    I think he is meaning the people that will still buy it are the ones that don't know the difference. I know I won't buy it if they don't allow dedicated servers because too many times I've seen the difference between dedicated and not and non dedicated sucks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DS78, 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:29am
    
    Re: Re: Dedicated servers
    I guess I need to word my posts more carefully. I meant that the people who will buy MW2 probably won't know the difference between a dedicated server and a localhost.
    
    My apologies for not being clear.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt, 9 Nov 2009 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re: Dedicated servers
    The industry was built off Dedicated servers like BF2 and cod4? try Half-life (and mods), or Tribes version 1, maybe BF:1942 The Dedicated Server Community is way older than CoD4.
    
    But yes, PC gamers know a good Dedicated server when they see one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
senshikaze (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:21am

They lost at least two sales from this apartment for being stupid.
And I even installed windows on a cheap harddrive for the game. *shrugs* oh well, guess I can use that space for something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kilroy, 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:22am

in the real world ...
You cannot adjust your "field of view"; it is what it is. But I guess you'd have to leave your mother's basement to find that out. ffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jaws4theRevenge, 9 Nov 2009 @ 11:14am
  
  Re: in the real world ...
  Really? What a retarded comment. You, Sir, have forfeit your internets. Al Gore will be along shortly to collect them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ady, 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:32am

Riight...
So a few hundred, maybe thousand people are boycotting the PC version? Good for you.

As people above have said, the console versions will do alot better (I saw 16,000 people online 8pm UK time on thursday; that's 5 days before the release).

If you all have time and dedication to seed the game, why not host your own games with your "friends" and stop all this bitching?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:57am
  
  Re: Riight...
  maybe a thousand? try 200,000
  
  http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?dedis4mw
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2009 @ 7:21am
    
    Re: Re: Riight...
    200,000 people have pressed 1 button. Chances are a vast majority will by the game and there are duplicate sigs.
    
    Millions of people buy (and enjoy) the game, they'll make a new one, I'm happy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 7:16am
  
  Re: Riight...
  Because there are NO dedicated servers. We CAN'T just host a game for our friends.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2009 @ 6:08am
  
  Re: Riight...
  actually, the petition that went around had approx 160,000 signatures attached to it. just an fyi. Even if half of those people don't buy the game, that's 80,000 X $60.00 If every one of them stuck to their guns and didn't buy it, it's a tremendous amount of lost revenue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dementia (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:41am

It seems they decided to show how to piss off distributors too. Apparently they are bundling Steam along with MW2 and, as a result, numerous digital download outlets are refusing to sell it as a result. From what I've heard, this will also be part of the retail version at stores. Now, I have used steam for several games, but I don't like the idea of having to log into steam just to play a game I have already purchased, especially if I went to the trouble of going to the store and paying for it locally.

http://technologizer.com/2009/11/06/steam-snag-digital-retailers-boycott-modern-warfar e-2/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wolfman, 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:49am

IW doesn't care about PC games...
IW doesn't really care about making PC gamers happy because most their sales come from console games. I'm not sure why they would intentionally limit the games capability on the PC, but they're going to sell 20 million units on the 360 and the PS3 combined, so don't act like your "boycott" is hurting anyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc, 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:51am

They might have pissed off their biggest fans, but when your actual fanbase is in the millions those are just a rounding error. Plus, the biggest fans will buy the game eventually, no matter what they say.

I think if the new game is as good as CoD4, they have nothing to worry about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 5:59am

Options.... really don't hurt things...

More options = more customers
Less options = less customers

Who would have thought...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
5ifth Gear (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:03am

Late to the party
Funny this (finally) comes to light on the day of the release! Maybe the boycott won't hurt IW/Activision's bottom line, but its simple economics at work here on both sides of the coin: IW is playing to the console crowd for the money, but PC gamers also aren't willing to pay more money for what they consider less game.
COD2 and COD4 are still being played years after their release ONLY because of dedicated servers and the community-generated content. MW2 will end up being a seasonal flash in the pan without it, and IW/Activision will have their hands for another $60 of the consolers money next year.
The difference is that the consolers will give it up because they have no choice, whereas PC gamers will continue to enjoy other developers' products that encourage community development.
BTW - where do you consolers think most of the ideas incorporated into MW2 came from? (hint: community-generated MODS!) ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mechwarrior, 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:03am

Most PC gamers are even more angry at the fact that kicking unruly players has been removed and replaced with some nebulous "cheat tracker" system. The loss of dedicated servers affects more than modders, it affects all players who want to play a fair game.

There's also another insidious problem. When a host drops their connection, and the next host is selected, the process is arbitrarily random.

Imagine the host drops out, and the next randomly selected host is also a cheater and a racist. You cannot kick this guy. The entire game becomes a waste.

The reason why I avoid console online game is because of the same exact things that PC Modern Warfare 2 is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
imbrucy (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:08am

The biggest annoyance in the removal of dedicated servers to me is in the difficulty of finding a good game. I now with CoD4 I have 3 servers that I know what games they play and the type of people that are usually there. I always go to those servers first. Without dedicated servers you never really know what you are going to get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:12am

Most arguments boil down on the PC gamer side of the fence as "How can they wrong us in this way!" On the console side of the fence you hear "Shall we call the Waaaaaaaahbulance?"

It's pure cut and simple. IW wants to limit the PC version like the Console version is in every way shape and form so they can try to sell down-loadable content to the PC gamers. This is idiotic because PC gamers for as long as there were PC games have made their own modifications to games. If the game is difficult to mod (which this one will be since they aren't releasing any mod tools) the game will die on PC faster than ever.

Since PC sales of games compared to Console sales of games always show the Consoles rocking it out in comparison while getting the added bonus of download-able content it's plain to see that they think if they treat the PC like it was a console all the sudden people will accept it.

I play on both platforms and both platforms cater to a different type of player, trying to force people on one side of the fence to do something the other side of the fence is doing is just plain and simple stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JohnForDummies (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:14am

I'm not a CoD player, but I am an avid PC gamer. Most games only have so many hours of play time before they become stale. Taking away user created mods takes away what gives a game more life. Example: Unreal Tournament was released in 1999, it is still sold in stores today. Why? Because there are thriving sub-cultures of modders who have changed the game enough to make it interesting again and there are still active servers run by fans of the game.

CoD4 won't have this kind of shelf life because it's online community will die when IW decides to shut down their servers. But that's what they want, because they'll be selling the next big thing by then anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:24am

Ah well. At least once it's been reverse-engineered by people who don't care about licensing terms, there will be all kinds of unauthorized and trojan-ed mods available. Heck, some of them might even make it onto the consoles' removable storage. Then they'll start banning modded versions from the official servers and then an alternate community will spring up, someone will figure out how to separate the mods from the trojans, and problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicholas Overstreet (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:38am

The Heart of the Matter
Someone at IW or Activision made the decision to NOT make a PC version. They have simply ported over the console version.
I feel like this is the real reason why all of the missing features.
They are trying to cut corners and they will pay for it with poor sales on the PC platform, which they will see as a reason to abandon PC gaming like others have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trench0r (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:48am

entitlement society?
I think Mike's got a point, sure it's a fair point to say those people are not entitled to the game they want to play, their only option is to play the game or not... boycott anyone..? oh it's COD Modern Warfare 2... boycotting that game will be as effective as boycotting starcraft 2... The big name means the company won't care.. where's Stardock when you need them? I just bought Demigod recently
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 10 Nov 2009 @ 1:10am
  
  Re: entitlement society?
  I was planning to upgrade my computer to be able to play Starcraft 2. I was actually going to buy all 3 parts but now that they decided to ditch LAN play I simply won't buy it. If enough people do the same it *will* hurt the bottom line. If not, I'm still not supporting companys that aren't interested in their customers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MBraedley (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 6:57am

Useless excusses
That's what Infinity Ward has used as reasons to lock down the game.

They won't allow dedicated servers because they're afraid of cheaters, yet from what I could tell, they're using Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC), which is fully supportable on dedicated servers. I basically only play TF2 on third party dedicated servers with VAC enabled.

The FOV issue? Well I'm sorry to say, but it's not balanced forcing everyone to have see the same thing horizontally, but force widescreen owners to see a reduced picture vertically.

Restriction to 9 vs. 9 multiplayer. What is this, 1999? The original CS had support for 12 vs. 12 AFAIK. 99% of the time, I play TF2 on 32 player (or greater, even) servers. With the exception of the King of the Hill and Arena maps (and even including some of them), all of the first party maps and many of the community maps can easily handle 16 players per team, and most stop being fun when the number of players dips below 16.

Suffice it to say, I'm not going to purchase this game. TF2, L4D, and L4D2 will provide me with much more online entertainment in the coming months than MW2 ever could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 7:00am

Game design is a funny thing
"We would like you to play the game the way we designed and balanced it."

You know, that statement in and of itself would be okay....if they actually designed the damn game to be played the way players want. Not everyone shares my opinion on games, and I do like a certain type/style of game, but when I look over a short list of my favorite games (most/all of which happen to be fairly successful):

1. Deus Ex
2. Fallout 1 & 2
3. The Sims
4. Sim City
5. Final Fantasy 7

...I notice that, with the exlusion of Final Fantasy 7, ALL of those games offer an extremely high degree of do-what-you-want-ness. Deus Ex was particularly well known for level designs that allowed you to complete objectives a variety of ways. The Fallout series is the same way, literally allowing you to act pretty much however you please. The Sims is kind of the kings of this type of thing.

When you actively try to make your game open to the interests of more people, you're going to win. Linear gameplay only works when the story is incredibly strong. Then the focus isn't really on the gameplay at all, but finding out what happens next in the story, a la FF7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 7:05am

Infinity Ward's Choice
Infinity Ward made the choice to cut out some of their biggest fans, but as a purely numbers business the group of people they cut out was extremely small.

I feel it is sad when this happens as I am one of those people they cut out. I had been looking forward to the game for a long time and now I won't be buying it, and I would have been two sales as I have a 360 to play with my casual gaming friends, but prefer PC gaming. (I have both versions of COD4 and COD:WAW)

I will probably borrow it from a friend for the single player story but I refuse to give them money after what they have done, even though I know it is probably going to be an insignificant gesture against such a huge game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 7:06am

But, don't forget all the awesome additions they made to the PC version!

You know, like...mouse control, text chat, and graphics settings! Think of all the work that went into that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James, 9 Nov 2009 @ 7:58am

I'll still play MW2. Sucks though, how' they're treating the PC users out there. http://bit.ly/DeI1O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny, 9 Nov 2009 @ 8:11am

what a stupid F34%#$%#$ article.

Adjusting your Field of VIEW IS CHEATING !!!!
How are people complaining that there will be less cheating ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 8:16am
  
  Re:
  1) Wrong.
  2) Good job focusing on ONE aspect of the terrible design of the PC version.
  3) Any cheaters that manage to get past the "anti-cheat" (and they will) cannot be kicked. That is called..."more cheating."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 3:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Also, I forgot #4) If there were dedicated servers and a console, servers could CHOOSE to enforce reasonable FOV boundaries (or prevent it from being changed).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NR, 9 Nov 2009 @ 8:13am

IW
Currently 20,000 COD4 servers are listed when you refresh "all" in lobby. That is a pretty big community of PC gamers spending their "MONEY" to host and support a game they enjoy.

IW/Activision made a choice to shift their MW2 in a different direction. It is their investment they can spend and develop how they choose. However, I doubt they wanted to investment addition time and resources into the PC platform (higher cost to develop). Even though their last game in the series is very popular.

Console game development = lower cost and less investment of resources after release for patches, etc. DLC issue discussed is just one area PC gamers differ on gaming with console.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NR, 9 Nov 2009 @ 8:18am

IW continued
COD MW2 self life is dramatically shortened as others have mentioned. I cannot support their current efforts on this game's development. Moving on to the next FPS game supporting PC gamers ----> BFBC2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
5ifth Gear (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 8:30am

How to avoid P2P lag and problem players in MW2!
Don't. Buy. The. Game.
For PC gamers, this is NOT the MP you're used to playing. Save your money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
5ifth Gear (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 8:36am

This game is not balanced for PC
BTW - anyone interested in a laugh needs to read the transcripts of the Best Buy online interview with IW devs. It seems the company's new motto regarding anything that doesn't fall right in line with their agenda is, "This game is not balanced for (insert anything related to PC play here)."
I lost count of how many times they used this sorry excuse in the interview!
You know its bad, too, when they start pitching the PC version based on the merits of it having 'video controls' and 'mouse support'! lol - I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2009 @ 9:49am
  
  Re: This game is not balanced for PC
  My favorite part was:
  
  "DudezTY: Since we cannot kick people in ranked matches, how will we stop hackers who get past VAC?
  
  Mackey-IW: Our goal is to ban hackers from the game."
  
  Yay non-answers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benjie, 9 Nov 2009 @ 9:06am

Messed up
I read one of the articles about this and several things stood out

#1. You cannot kick a cheater from your own server. You can't kick ANYONE from your server

#2. Limited to 9v9 MAX. GL with guild matches

#3. you have absolutely no control over the server. You just get the regular default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Benjie, 9 Nov 2009 @ 10:10am

And a fast response
""DudezTY: Since we cannot kick people in ranked matches, how will we stop hackers who get past VAC?

Mackey-IW: Our goal is to ban hackers from the game.""

VAC uses a delayed ban which can take upwards for 2 months before the ban hammer hits. So if someone is cheating in your match right now, it may be as long as two months before they get banned, even if VAC flags them right now.

VAC does this to make it hard for cheaters to figure out what works and what doesn't. I guess a delayed response removes cheaters in the long run and makes it hard to reverse engineer the logic used to detect the cheats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 9 Nov 2009 @ 11:37am

Despite all of the bitching and moaning, they'll be lined up around the block for midnight launches tonight. It'll sell like water in the desert. End of discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NR, 9 Nov 2009 @ 11:59am

RE: post 69
Only the console kiddies. I doubt PC gamers will be joining the ranks that is unless they are interested in the single player missions. We'll all see how it plays out in just a few hours, days and coming weeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian (profile), 9 Nov 2009 @ 12:36pm

I wasn't too worried about the removal of dedicated servers but when they were asked if the game was a console port and their response was:
"We included custom features for the PC such as mouse control, text based chatting, and the ability to adjust graphical settings"
I lost all respect for this horrific company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
moba, 9 Nov 2009 @ 3:30pm

codmw2
see you modders are cousins of hackers. first you want to change the field of view, next thing youd be glitching to get vantage points and steal kills. I wouldnt give you a dedicated server either so you can spoof packets into the network and cause opponents to glitch. Specially just to get your rank up. for all that just play a Valve Source game where you can mod all you want cause nobody cares. CoD is a major market and if you mess my rank up Im hunting down your ISP via IP and coming for that ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cheap building materials, 10 Nov 2009 @ 12:37am

Modern Warfare 2 Shows How To Piss Off Fans

I cant wait to buy and play my copy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
casual gamer, 10 Nov 2009 @ 12:45am

quake 2 was about the only game i KNOW had dedicated servers and i liked its consistency so if MW2 wont have that then boo IW but thats not why im here i want to know if PC gamers will be able to play online games with 360 users of the game like in shadowrun? because i sold my 360 and my friends love cod and i want to join in thier reindeer games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2009 @ 6:27am

I believe the reason they chose not to support dedicated servers was A) back when the game was announced I remember reading that they guarantee 4 quarterly DCL packs in the first year. This means they are forcing PC gamers to pay for updates...because people will. esp if the game is as big as they are hoping, who wouldn't shell out $10 for new maps? And B)Laziness in coding. It's far easier to port over everything than it is to invest time in a total different build of the game.

Maybe I'm off base here. Maybe they just don't feel like fooling with the PC version at all. Is it just a coincidence that none of the special editions are available to PC gamers? Were they anticipating far lower sales than normal in the PC version because they knew ahead of time no dedi servers would hurt sales? It's tough to say, but I'd be it has more to do with the content packs than anything else. It's a quick buck to be made with little time invested. Not to mention, by giving us a game that wont be played for years to come they can just try to sell us the next title in the series. They probably don't want a game with longevity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2009 @ 6:27am

I believe the reason they chose not to support dedicated servers was A) back when the game was announced I remember reading that they guarantee 4 quarterly DCL packs in the first year. This means they are forcing PC gamers to pay for updates...because people will. esp if the game is as big as they are hoping, who wouldn't shell out $10 for new maps? And B)Laziness in coding. It's far easier to port over everything than it is to invest time in a total different build of the game.

Maybe I'm off base here. Maybe they just don't feel like fooling with the PC version at all. Is it just a coincidence that none of the special editions are available to PC gamers? Were they anticipating far lower sales than normal in the PC version because they knew ahead of time no dedi servers would hurt sales? It's tough to say, but I'd be it has more to do with the content packs than anything else. It's a quick buck to be made with little time invested. Not to mention, by giving us a game that wont be played for years to come they can just try to sell us the next title in the series. They probably don't want a game with longevity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CJK, 11 Nov 2009 @ 4:24pm

modern warfare 2 sucks
modern warfare2 sucks this bla bla bla crap about trying to find matchmaking server is stupid infinaty ward is just trying to make fans mad like my self and the hole country if you happen to have cod5 play that and make your clan (mw2)or (mw2-) the line basically means sucks so this is what the clan means MODERN WARFARE 2 SUCKS make sure you tell all your freinds that and dont take this the wrong way becuase I know what im talking about if you want to add me you'll have to have a ps3 my name on ps3 is spelled like this smashbro01
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CJK, 11 Nov 2009 @ 4:25pm

modern warfare 2 sucks
modern warfare2 sucks this bla bla bla crap about trying to find matchmaking server is stupid infinaty ward is just trying to make fans mad like my self and the hole country if you happen to have cod5 play that and make your clan (mw2)or (mw2-) the line basically means sucks so this is what the clan means MODERN WARFARE 2 SUCKS make sure you tell all your freinds that and dont take this the wrong way becuase I know what im talking about if you want to add me you'll have to have a ps3 my name on ps3 is spelled like this smashbro01
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack, 12 Nov 2009 @ 9:36am

I believe FPS computer based games should provide the option for FOV to be changed in the video settings. This way your average noob has access to these options, making the difference in FOV a personal preference not an upperhand-secret option.

With the release of Call of duty:WaW and Call of Duty:MW2 im starting to think that the awesome creation of COD:4 was a flook by these people.

Get it right of get out of the computer game entertainment industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack, 12 Nov 2009 @ 10:16am

Its not even about 'skilled' players having access to console functions and being considered as cheating. its about players understanding how the game works and was designed.

if the game designers wanted to reduce the unbalanced gameplay due to these secret-console-functions, The should have made them built-in game options. How hard would it be to have a slider for FPS limitations or Fov selections the exact same as a Resolution selection.

The leaning was removed from the xbox version because there was not enough buttons to support it.

IVE GOT PLENTY OF KEYS ON MY KEYBOARD.

it really shows their direction towards console gaming when they do something as silly as that.

They really should have modified COD4. "The most successful first person shooter in history".

Dont know how they expected to beat that... WITH THIS... disappointing IW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 13 Nov 2009 @ 11:34am

Dudes get real lol those developers don't make money off of PC anymore. There are very few people that have a rig worthy to play the game compared to consoles and the people that do will most likely torrent the game unless they want multiplayer. I totally agree with the settings thing and how they want it all locked up. One of the downfalls for the PC is all those tweaked settings and stuff people do in console. One example being steam where you HAD to put all these settings in and people even made scripts....that's way to overboard for 99% of people that would rather pop the game in and play it. Anyway, no settings means it's going to be exactly like the next guys, making it much more fair. PC gaming is in the past if you ask me anyway...ever since i picked up 360 there is no point trying to upgrade my computer yet again to play the next hot game...i'll just plop the disk in and the game will start!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kirsten Geukens, 15 Nov 2009 @ 1:23pm

FOV isn't cheating
Everyones talking about how adjusting the FOV is cheating, but they're forgetting one thing: this game is making people all over the world sick as hell. Nausea, general motion sickness BECAUSE the fov is too low. These peoples problems were solved by increasing the FOV via a hack in SP and they can now fully enjoy SP. Sadly the trick cannot be used on the MP part so these people can never enjoy MP CoD MW2. THATS what this is all about. Little to do with advantages over another player. I'm as good with default fov as with modded fov in previous MW. It's all in the head, literally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 19 Nov 2009 @ 10:55pm

Just a thought here....
Umm.. @Dan: Sorry buddy but WoW still rakes in the dough if you want top grossing game of all time. Oh and btw It's purely PC. Don't pick on PC games when the developer cant get his head out of his "fill in blank" and dum down graphics to where a Netbook can run it at 15fps. Hell Earth Eternal full 3d MMO runs out of your browser!

Now that my ranting is done.

Just a thought here... why get pissed off at all?

No dedicated server, so what? When there's a little thing called GameSpy Arcade and it's been around since WarCraft the original. Still to this day I smack myself in the forehead racking up a 400$ phone bill playing Direct Dial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
admica, 22 Nov 2009 @ 11:43pm

no, they'll just hack
They'll complain, and some will go to console or go back to counterstrike, cod4, etc., but many others that petitioned have just ended up buying it anyway. Others have taken it a step further and implemented cheats. But the majority of the cheaters didn't write any code, they just bought their hacks from sites like artificialaiming.net. You can see all about my experience here at blog.rootninja.com/archive/modern-warfare-2-aim-bots-and-wall-hacks/

I watched the replay of someone with hacks ruining it for everyone in the game. This usually doesn't last too long as they eventually get a nuke and just end the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bill lanier, 27 Dec 2009 @ 5:58pm

cod2
yes if u got ca duty 2 WE GOT OFF BAD THINK THEY SHOULD GIVE REFUNDS THEY GOT MY LAST DOLLAR BILL L !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
manbearpig, 5 Jun 2010 @ 4:24pm

mw2
haha balanced? take those words and shove them up your ass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sunwolf87, 17 Jun 2010 @ 10:51pm

First of all, the thing that IW doestn't, and will NEVER understand, is that THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!!

Several people on this site have commented that game companies like Epic, ID and Valve allow user-created content and game settings in order to breathe life into a game that would normally be played out. IW in the long run is only throttling the future community following it will receive for future titles. Look at Sega. They released the Saturn, tried to pump out games, all the while robbing the dev teams making their games of the time and resources need to make the games all they could be, and look at them now; THEY GOT BOUGHT OUT!

The reason that these good companies are still around is that they listen to what their customers want, and they incorporate that into their products. IW will pay with bancruptcy for their unwillingness to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sunwolf87, 17 Jun 2010 @ 10:57pm
  
  Re:
  There's another possibility to consider in all this:
  
  Maybe people will just buy the game because it represents a certain solid grond in moral fiber that seems to be missing from the world today.
  
  Get your heads out of your collective ***es, people of the world and stand for your beliefs! Stop letting everything cloud what you really think!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]