PC:MW2 just a console port?

Welp the PC gamer elitists can't be too thrilled about this... ;)

http://undead.mygameclan.com/blog.htm?a=&nid=3ED19F70-E91F-444A-B950-590F9152AE76

Notable answers on answers to questions raised include:

* there is no console command menu to tweak settings;
* confirmation that there will be no modding;
* confirmation that there will be no dedicated servers whatsoever;
* the ability to lean has been removed;
* there is no function to record matches;
* the largest matches will be limited to 9 v 9 players;
* IW.net will determine who should be the host player.


When directly asked if MW2 on PC was simply a port of the console version, Mackey responded "No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings".

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/6552/original/facepalm1ve4.jpg

You're right... the PC gaming elite aren't too thrilled about it, neither is the competitive PC gaming community. Not being able to host your own dedicated server just kills it... raising the price on it is just adding insult on top of injury.

GG IW (insert epic facepalm.gif here)

Meh... just wait for Batlefield Bad Company 2 if you really want a good modern FPS for the PC. DICE has gone on record that BC2 will not be a console port to the PC.

Meh... just wait for Batlefield Bad Company 2 if you really want a good modern FPS for the PC. DICE has gone on record that BC2 will not be a console port to the PC.

Oh I think there will be quite a few CoD conversions to BF really soon. DICE is making sure of that by driving home the notion that 'PC gamers put up with a lot of crap so we're going to give them extras in the next battlefield". Talk about trying to take advantage of the situation.

I can tell you one thing...

Campaign is pretty nice. However, no offline local CO-OP on PC. And I can't figure out a way to get around that hurdle.

Seems anything MP related will be handled by their IW.Net on PC, and PSN/XBL on consoles.

A really stupid decision, but hey whatever floats their boat.

Xbox Live - Revolutionising online console gaming, sending PC online gaming back to the 90s :lol:

BF:BC2 will be implementing a special kind of server sysytem.

RENTAL ONLY!

Nice work topping Activision EA. You've still got the knack.

BF:BC2 will be implementing a special kind of server sysytem.

RENTAL ONLY!

Nice work topping Activision EA. You've still got the knack.

Wait... what? PC gamers running dedicated servers almost always rent out a capable server. I'm failing to see the issue here :huh

Im tell you guys. IW doesnt give a rats ass about making this a good product now. they need to move on and do something else and leave this for Treyarch to handle because treyarch has been doing a better job with COD lately.


dont get me wrong i know COD MW2 is going to be a really great game but there will be little follow up support for it. I wouldnt be surprised to find a really bad glitch in this game that doesnt get fixed for months.

This is almost as pathetic as Resident Evil 4 (PC) :lol:

Im tell you guys. IW doesnt give a rats ass about making this a good product now. they need to move on and do something else and leave this for Treyarch to handle because treyarch has been doing a better job with COD lately.


What do you mean lately?? COD:Waw? :rolleyes:

I'm not saying they didn't craft a fine game. But it was not better than COD4. The onus is on IW to release something as close to perfection as possible. That much is definitely true.

What do you mean lately?? COD:Waw? :rolleyes:

I'm not saying they didn't craft a fine game. But it was not better than COD4. The onus is on IW to release something as close to perfection as possible. That much is definitely true.

I would argue that WaW was certainly a better game than MW. The polish of the story/single player was leaps and bounds better in both presentation and variety of gameplay. The multiplayer was similar enough ( no major faults, better maps imo), but they also had the zombie levels which added a nice icing to their proverbial multiplayer cake. :cool:

Who makes a better COD between Tre and IW is debatable. But I do give Tre credit for raising the bar. In the past Tre's COD was considered the step child dev for COD games. That is no longer the case after W@W.

I would argue that WaW was certainly a better game than MW. The polish of the story/single player was leaps and bounds better in both presentation and variety of gameplay. The multiplayer was similar enough ( no major faults, better maps imo), but they also had the zombie levels which added a nice icing to their proverbial multiplayer cake. :cool:

For the simple fact that they couldn't do something more imaginative than World War II sums up my statement.

As I stated previously, I'm not saying they didn't craft a fine game. But better? I don't think so. Nothing about WaW had the staying power that COD4 did and still does. The only thing that will be able to beat out COD4 is its true sequel IMO.

Personally I will always prefer shooting at a Nazi than some terrorist. World War II will never become dated because it such a historical event that has happen. You may enjoy shooting automatic weapons with laser sites and grenade launcher but the environment is the most important part of an online shooter for me not the weapons. IW has created an awesome franchise but I think they have really drop the ball in the overall support for there product after it hits the retail shelves. I think Treyarch has done some really great innovating things with there follow up titles. They created the WAR game mode which was extremely popular in COD3 and they gave us character classes in COD3 like Medic. Overall it created a different playstyle and feel to the traditional Call of Duty 1 and 2. People just don’t like anyone else touching this game other than IW and I don’t understand why? before IW created Perks and Challenges it was just a better looking game with modern weapons. I can’t wait to see what Treyarch does next with there COD7 title.

This is just my opinion but I enjoy the Treyarch games more. Most will not agree but that’s just the way I see it.

I prefer Treyarch for one reason, support.... IW released 2-3 patches over 2 years to support their game (Modern Warfare).. Tre has released multiple patches to fix even small things that were not glitches, but things that took away from the game, or to balance weapons..

It took IW 1.5 years to release a patch to stop modded controllers, we got one map pack (it was decent) from IW and now with MW2 we werent going to get any co-op.. They did not even start nor consider co-op till WaW came out with Nazi Zombies, they saw how the community gobbled it up and said well they are doing it so lets try our hand...

No doubt Spec Ops will be good but they just took a little bit from RB6 (terrorist hunt), Gears (Horde mode), then added some Tom Clancy sneaking and topped it off with snowmobile races.. I give them props for saying these levels are not rehased, that they designed them each jusr for this game type.

Although on the live streaming event for MW2 that I watched this week they said that no DLC support is planned for Spec Ops, soo hopefully people play this game type enough to justify that we get more than just 2-3 MP maps per DLC.. The first one is slated for spring 2010..

Treyarch uses IWs engine as a map editor basically.

Let's see how good they can make an FPS game from scratch. ;)

I prefer Treyarch for one reason, support.... IW released 2-3 patches over 2 years to support their game (Modern Warfare).. Tre has released multiple patches to fix even small things that were not glitches, but things that took away from the game, or to balance weapons..

It took IW 1.5 years to release a patch to stop modded controllers, we got one map pack (it was decent) from IW and now with MW2 we werent going to get any co-op.. They did not even start nor consider co-op till WaW came out with Nazi Zombies, they saw how the community gobbled it up and said well they are doing it so lets try our hand...


And in the 1.5 years have also been working on another full game.

Treyarch uses IWs engine as a map editor basically.

Let's see how good they can make an FPS game from scratch. ;)

Bingo. Treyarch has yet to prove they can come up with a unique, original story (WWII is NOT original) and actually develop a game from start to finish.

And in the 1.5 years have also been working on another full game.



Bingo. Treyarch has yet to prove they can come up with a unique, original story (WWII is NOT original) and actually develop a game from start to finish.


hold on your saying they are not as good as IW because they didnt make the game engine? there are many game companys that make quality games from other engines. HOW MANY COMPANYS USE EPIC'S UNREAL ENGINE?? that sounds like a cop out AWOL, and KAM you should no better.

every fan of COD MW is a fan for one reason... and that reason is Modern Weapons.

And in the 1.5 years have also been working on another full game.


:lol:

Epic fail man, you act like Treyarch is not making COD 7 right now as well, all while providing support for their community. Are you seriously taking a stance where community support by a dev is a bad thing, because thats what it sounds like...

If something needs balancing or a glitch needs a patch, I like my devs to be behind the community supporting it with whatever it needs. The sad thing is in the live streaming thing I watched on MW2, they even stated that patches are not time consuming and can patch in anytime.. So that means, they just dont care enough for their community to do so.. Treyarch on the other hand did, people complained about shotguns, so they balanced them, people playing S&D complained about the excessive use of noob tubes in the first 15 seconds of a match and Treyarch listened and patched it, ect , ect, ect.. Not to mention all the DLC maps and new stuff for Zombies like perks, new weapons and such..

end rant

hold on your saying they are not as good as IW because they didnt make the game engine? there are many game companys that make quality games from other engines. HOW MANY COMPANYS USE EPIC'S UNREAL ENGINE?? that sounds like a cop out AWOL, and KAM you should no better.

every fan of COD MW is a fan for one reason... and that reason is Modern Weapons.

No. I'm saying they're not as good because they're not having to do everything that IW did when they produced COD4. Everything about COD4 was original and unique. Engine, story, everything. Engine development alone is a HUGE undertaking. And yet they were STILL able to deliver an absolutely stellar experience.

Treyarch didn't have to worry about devoting resources to engine development. In turn, they can focus those energies on Story, content (including DLC and the beloved zombie mode), etc. Again, I've not ever once stated that COD:WaW was a bad game.

When Treyarch is able to deliver on everything, as IW has done, and do it as well as IW has done, then that's a different story as far as I'm concerned.

:lol:

Epic fail man, you act like Treyarch is not making COD 7 right now as well, all while providing support for their community. Are you seriously taking a stance where community support by a dev is a bad thing, because thats what it sounds like...

If something needs balancing or a glitch needs a patch, I like my devs to be behind the community supporting it with whatever it needs. The sad thing is in the live streaming thing I watched on MW2, they even stated that patches are not time consuming and can patch in anytime.. So that means, they just dont care enough for their community to do so.. Treyarch on the other hand did, people complained about shotguns, so they balanced them, people playing S&D complained about the excessive use of noob tubes in the first 15 seconds of a match and Treyarch listened and patched it, ect , ect, ect.. Not to mention all the DLC maps and new stuff for Zombies like perks, new weapons and such..

end rant

No, you're putting words in my mouth. My response to Sal pretty much applies to you as well.

Bottom line, when Treyarch provides a title that they themselves have built from the ground up, and provides a AAA experience, then great. In the meantime, I do have more respect for the abilities of IW than I do of Treyarch.

I have more respect for ANY developer that provides a stellar experience and they've done all the work themselves. It shows a commitment to their product and their vision. This is not to say that I don't have respect or don't like products that developers have used licensed technology.

And as far as the 1.5 years thing? It obviously wasn't a priority for them. Maybe this sounds a bit selfish, but I never had any problems with people using modded controls that I knew of. So if it means they focused more on delivering a stellar experience for the sequel, so be it.

I just want to add this in, coming from the PC Side.

IW released 7 major patches for the PC. Treyarch released 6 major patches for the PC.

If you look up the Patch histories, the IW patches were mostly tweaks from recoil to weapon balance. Two of the major patches addressed game flaws.

five of the Treyarch patches focused on major hardware and software issues. From broken sound channels to MP drops.

Funny, if you ask the PC community which of the two got more support they'd say CoD4 hands down. It was also the least broken out of the box.

Why the PC community is in such an uproar with the changes in MW2.

When Treyarch is able to deliver on everything, as IW has done, and do it as well as IW has done, then that's a different story as far as I'm concerned.



No, you're putting words in my mouth. My response to Sal pretty much applies to you as well.

Bottom line, when Treyarch provides a title that they themselves have built from the ground up, and provides a AAA experience, then great. In the meantime, I do have more respect for the abilities of IW than I do of Treyarch.

I have more respect for ANY developer that provides a stellar experience and they've done all the work themselves. It shows a commitment to their product and their vision. This is not to say that I don't have respect or don't like products that developers have used licensed technology.

And as far as the 1.5 years thing? It obviously wasn't a priority for them. Maybe this sounds a bit selfish, but I never had any problems with people using modded controls that I knew of. So if it means they focused more on delivering a stellar experience for the sequel, so be it.


You do understand that the owners of both Treyarch and IW are Activision and Blizzard.. Look at the games IW has made, it totals 4 games, Treyarch has quite a few more games other than COD titles (20+ games), Blizz/Activision wants them to dev more than just COD games. Sooo dont give IW too much credit, yes they made a fantastic game in COD4 and will no doubt give us a great (console) game in MW2.. But they only have COD to concentrate on, while B/A (Blizzard Activision) wants Treyarch to go beyond COD titles..

Dev support to the community means more to me than the makers of a game engine, that GE is only as good as the devs make it..

Your logic would say that Rocksteady Studios does not derseve all the credit it has garnered from Batman: Arkham Asylum because they did not make the Unreal Engine themselves.. It costs a lot of money to make and market a game engine and without the backing of B/A you can bet your ass IW would not have been able to make their own IW engine, they would still be using ID tech.. Some dev studios simply dont have the money or the backing to create their own...

I just want to add this in, coming from the PC Side.

IW released 7 major patches for the PC. Treyarch released 6 major patches for the PC.

If you look up the Patch histories, the IW patches were mostly tweaks from recoil to weapon balance. Two of the major patches addressed game flaws.

five of the Treyarch patches focused on major hardware and software issues. From broken sound channels to MP drops.

Funny, if you ask the PC community which of the two got more support they'd say CoD4 hands down. It was also the least broken out of the box.

Why the PC community is in such an uproar with the changes in MW2.

Yea if I were a hardcore PC gamer, I would be quite upset with IW, how can you support the title on this medium and than turn around and give the community the finger...

What would compell IW to do this?

You do understand that the owners of both Treyarch and IW are Activision and Blizzard.. Look at the games IW has made, it totals 4 games, Treyarch has quite a few more games other than COD titles (20+ games), Blizz/Activision wants them to dev more than just COD games. Sooo dont give IW too much credit, yes they made a fantastic game in COD4 and will no doubt give us a great (console) game in MW2.. But they only have COD to concentrate on, while B/A (Blizzard Activision) wants Treyarch to go beyond COD titles..

Dev support to the community means more to me than the makers of a game engine, that GE is only as good as the devs make it..

Your logic would say that Rocksteady Studios does not derseve all the credit it has garnered from Batman: Arkham Asylum because they did not make the Unreal Engine themselves.. It costs a lot of money to make and market a game engine and without the backing of B/A you can bet your ass IW would not have been able to make their own IW engine, they would still be using ID tech.. Some dev studios simply dont have the money or the backing to create their own...

To sort of jump in the Treyarch vs IW fiasco...

Of all those games made by Treyarch how many did you play? How many of them went on to win any kind of award?

If you look them up, you'd see they are considered to be bad games by the majority. Sure, someone will say "I loved that game" but the majority didn't.

As for IW, they've made more games than CoD, however it was under their old studio name. They made the Medal of Honor Series, and you could see the fall in quality when that group left to form Infinity Ward. Medal of Honor went from a pioneer in the FPS genre to a cut and paste clone making expansion after expansion with no innovation. Then CoD 1 came out and buried the Medal of Honor series - to this day MoH still hasn't recovered, chances are it never will.

If your devotion is to the developers that support the community, I'm not sure why you don't hands down picked IW over Treyarch. Unless you are only going by the console support. IW has done more for its community than Treyarch can ever do based on the focus of your primary argument. They aren't getting pushed around by Activision/Blizzard like Treyarch is. The patches by IW were made based on the community complaints.

Yea if I were a hardcore PC gamer, I would be quite upset with IW, how can you support the title on this medium and than turn around and give the community the finger...

What would compell IW to do this?

I really don't know why. I think they got burned. If you read the patch history for CoD:MW it was all to address the PC community. Dedicated server issues, lean issues, admin issues - they solve all these headaches by cutting those features out.

It will always boil down to money in the end. And aren't industries into to make the money? Lik you and Kam argued for L4D2. Favoring the community doesn't sell map paks, or DLC, or anything like that. So screw em, and let the "casual" gamers pick up the slack.

I'm not buying CoD:MW2. I cancelled my pre-order. I'll just play the single player campaign through piracy then delete the ISO. Ill rent it for the PS3/360 to ease my brain on the piracy (since you can't rent PC games.) But they aren't getting more than a rental fee from me.

Yea if I were a hardcore PC gamer, I would be quite upset with IW, how can you support the title on this medium and than turn around and give the community the finger...

What would compell IW to do this?

$

Worse of all is the PC community is responsible for making CoD as popular as it is, if it wasn't for the PC gamers we probably would have never even seen CoD2.

hold on your saying they are not as good as IW because they didnt make the game engine? there are many game companys that make quality games from other engines. HOW MANY COMPANYS USE EPIC'S UNREAL ENGINE?? that sounds like a cop out AWOL, and KAM you should no better.

every fan of COD MW is a fan for one reason... and that reason is Modern Weapons.


Big |--------------------------------------| difference between what IW does with COD and what DICE or Rocksteady does with UE3.

Dig through the WaW install files. Most are exact copies from MW. Most have .IW file extension. Hell, the level 'All Ghillied Up' in MW was reskinned as a jungle map for WaW. The exact same map with different textures and a few sets of trenches.


WaW was a decent shooter. COD3 was a decent shooter.

So Zombie mode > Spec-Ops?


Someone should copy/paste the install directory of MW vs WaW and then Mirror's Edge vs Arkam Asylum so these guys can educate themselves about piggybacking vs engine licensing.

To sort of jump in the Treyarch vs IW fiasco...

Of all those games made by Treyarch how many did you play? How many of them went on to win any kind of award?

If you look them up, you'd see they are considered to be bad games by the majority. Sure, someone will say "I loved that game" but the majority didn't.

As for IW, they've made more games than CoD, however it was under their old studio name. They made the Medal of Honor Series, and you could see the fall in quality when that group left to form Infinity Ward. Medal of Honor went from a pioneer in the FPS genre to a cut and paste clone making expansion after expansion with no innovation. Then CoD 1 came out and buried the Medal of Honor series - to this day MoH still hasn't recovered, chances are it never will.

If your devotion is to the developers that support the community, I'm not sure why you don't hands down picked IW over Treyarch. Unless you are only going by the console support. IW has done more for its community than Treyarch can ever do based on the focus of your primary argument. They aren't getting pushed around by Activision/Blizzard like Treyarch is. The patches by IW were made based on the community complaints.



I really don't know why. I think they got burned. If you read the patch history for CoD:MW it was all to address the PC community. Dedicated server issues, lean issues, admin issues - they solve all these headaches by cutting those features out.

It will always boil down to money in the end. And aren't industries into to make the money? Lik you and Kam argued for L4D2. Favoring the community doesn't sell map paks, or DLC, or anything like that. So screw em, and let the "casual" gamers pick up the slack.

I'm not buying CoD:MW2. I cancelled my pre-order. I'll just play the single player campaign through piracy then delete the ISO. Ill rent it for the PS3/360 to ease my brain on the piracy (since you can't rent PC games.) But they aren't getting more than a rental fee from me.

Yea you are talking about IW before they were IW, I am talking about the games they have made since forming IW, which is nothing but COD.. I have played a couple of games made by Treyarch, however my point with that was directed towards Awol. He makes it look like IW does not have to support or patch their games because they are busy doing other things.. Well those other things are nothing but COD based, while Treyarch does other things (aside from COD, oh and also COD related) and still finds time to create new content and add support to thier community (consoles anyways)..

As for who does what for who, well its nice IW is there for the PC community but you are dismissing what they are not doing for the console community.. While Tre is on par if not slightly below them in the PC department but totally above and beyond them in the console realm..

I dont know much about the PC history of patches, but from what it sounds like, IW didnt give a shit about the consoles and really took care of its PC community.. That is just the opposite for us console peasants :p

$

Worse of all is the PC community is responsible for making CoD as popular as it is, if it wasn't for the PC gamers we probably would have never even seen CoD2.

But where would they get money from shafting the PC community?

That to me sounds like the exact opposite, unless they are trying to sway people from Piracy..

Trying to sway piracy?:lol:

The 360 torrent has been live for a week now and there hasn't been a peep about the PC iso.


The P2P system makes it easier for Activision to control content, ie: sell DLC to the PC market.

Trying to sway piracy?:lol:

The 360 torrent has been live for a week now and there hasn't been a peep about the PC iso.


The P2P system makes it easier for Activision to control content, ie: sell DLC to the PC market.

Yea I was asking a question and giving what I thought may be an issue, I dont see whats soo funny about a legitimate question...

How would a P2P solution help to control content or sell DLC on the PC? What exactly do you mean by control content?

These are all honest questions, I have no clue how that would help sell or control anything. I am not a big PC gamer so I am obviously missing something, help me out.

That's cool. It's being done under the guise of piracy protection FWIW, so could see how you could misunderstand it.

By making the game P2P only, you eliminate the ability for players to access unofficial servers. That way, all the MP content is controlled by the publisher. The paid DLC map packs will have no competition from a would-be mod community. Paid DLC gun skins will have no competition from a would-be mod community.

Basically, it's an attempt to nickel and dime PC gamers in the fashion that console gamers have voted with their wallets to embrace. I guess I can see where Activision got the notion that all gamers don't mind being gouged.

That does make a lot sense, thanks for helping me out, I guess I am part of the problem as I dish out a lot of money for DLC.. I like to think I am supporting the devs, but I bet I am also one of the many who are turning once PC friendly devs into soul suckers :(

I have bought DLC only once this gen. I wanted to support the dev, plus the game had free content too. DLC splits the online community between those with or without DLC. One of activision's bosses mentioned he wanted $80 games. We have them due via DLC.

Yea I was asking a question and giving what I thought may be an issue, I dont see whats soo funny about a legitimate question...

How would a P2P solution help to control content or sell DLC on the PC? What exactly do you mean by control content?

These are all honest questions, I have no clue how that would help sell or control anything. I am not a big PC gamer so I am obviously missing something, help me out.
On top of what Kam said:

I can handle pay 4 dlc(even on the PC) I don't like it but I understand it... but WTF is with raising the PC version price to match the console version price!?! There are NO, NONE, NIEN, NADA, ZILCH, ZIPPO, ZERO licensing fees on the PC platform! There is no legitimate cost increase in production to cause the PC version to cost the same price as the console version (which most definitely has licensing fee's) It's a blatant money grab by IW.

Personally I don’t care what other games each of these companies are developing. If you have the #1 shooter on the market (which is probably the largest minority game type) you better give us more than "1" Map Pack that actually has more than 1 map that wasn't in the single player campaign. COD4 is a great game but an Epic Failure for Dev Support.

You do understand that the owners of both Treyarch and IW are Activision and Blizzard.. Look at the games IW has made, it totals 4 games, Treyarch has quite a few more games other than COD titles (20+ games), Blizz/Activision wants them to dev more than just COD games. Sooo dont give IW too much credit, yes they made a fantastic game in COD4 and will no doubt give us a great (console) game in MW2.. But they only have COD to concentrate on, while B/A (Blizzard Activision) wants Treyarch to go beyond COD titles..

How many people work at Treyarch?? How many people work at IW?? Is it possible that they have more employees and can work on multiple projects at once? I don't know what their headcounts are, but it would make perfect sense.


Dev support to the community means more to me than the makers of a game engine, that GE is only as good as the devs make it.


It does to me too. My comments have nothing to do with dev support. Adding more map packs to WaW did not make me like the idea of playing any more than I already did. Which is to say, I still didn't want to play it.


Your logic would say that Rocksteady Studios does not derseve all the credit it has garnered from Batman: Arkham Asylum because they did not make the Unreal Engine themselves.. It costs a lot of money to make and market a game engine and without the backing of B/A you can bet your ass IW would not have been able to make their own IW engine, they would still be using ID tech.. Some dev studios simply dont have the money or the backing to create their own...

No, my logic would say that I don't have as much respect for Rocksteady Studios because they didn't produce a game as awesome as Batman was AND make their own engine to go with it. Batman was an awesome game. They did a great job. But the fact remains that as much respect as I have for RS (and it's not a small amount), it would be even more if they had produced their own engine to go with it.

But all of this is detracting from my original comment to Sal. COD4 was a better game than WaW. This is a subjective statement. I did not like WaW nearly as much as COD4. I did not feel driven to continue playing WaW like I did with COD4.

There are TWO things that really bug me about WaW over COD4 and they are:

1. The uniforms are so close it is hard to tell who is who in WaW unless you can see the name tag being in red instead of green. For me that takes a split second longer expecially when they do not always show up right away when you see someone.

2. The second thing is that if you did not buy the Map Pack that is next in queue you end up waiting for the countdown and then at the last second people get the votes to change/skip the current game and you get bumped for not having the Map that replaces it. Also it doesn't look at what Map Packs are owned and limit the next maps after a game to one everyone already owns. That means you get broken off from a good team you were on in the last game.

I know they want to make money off the additional added maps, but to basically force you to buy all of them to avoid those issues is gouging to me. Buying all those maps pretty much doubles the cost of the game.

I never had those issues with COD4 and I never bought any map packs for COD4. To me, COD4 has much longer playability than WaW and I hardly play it anymore as a result.

PFC5, you do know that COD4 does the same thing in regards to someone not having a map, it boots said person.. It does not happen a lot but my buddy who just started playing it to freshen up on modern guns, has been kicked numerous times in the last couple weeks...

Awol, agree to disagree my man, not all devs can afford to make thier own game engine and to knock them for that is beyond me.. I dont give IW as much credit because they are backed by the single largest entity in gaming, no wonder they can afford to make only one game at a time and dev an engine with no liscensing fee's, its a smart move by B/A. Not all studio's have it so lucky, thus we see plenty of Unreal Engine games..

I never had those issues with COD4 and I never bought any map packs for COD4. To me, COD4 has much longer playability than WaW and I hardly play it anymore as a result.

LOL. thats because there is only 1 Map Pack :banghead:

IWs COD4 support in terms of map packs....yeah.

They were kinda busy making a new game. Treyarch has the luxury of only having to make maps and sprinkle them with AI triggers. They don't have to develop any tools or code libraries.

PFC5, you do know that COD4 does the same thing in regards to someone not having a map, it boots said person.. It does not happen a lot but my buddy who just started playing it to freshen up on modern guns, has been kicked numerous times in the last couple weeks...

Awol, agree to disagree my man, not all devs can afford to make thier own game engine and to knock them for that is beyond me.. I dont give IW as much credit because they are backed by the single largest entity in gaming, no wonder they can afford to make only one game at a time and dev an engine with no liscensing fee's, its a smart move by B/A. Not all studio's have it so lucky, thus we see plenty of Unreal Engine games..

I have gotten bumped only when I try to go into a gain I was invited to with someone who has the map pack. I couldn't figure out WHY I couldn't get in to some until Kamspy filled me in on that. So I guess I do not like a lot of map packs because I do not even want to spend twice the money to use it and not waste a lot of time only to get bumped. But I NEVER got bumped from a game online in MP mode where I was already IN the previous game. It has only happened when I was trying to get into an invite game. With WaW, it happened on the next round of a game/group i was already playing with.

LOL. thats because there is only 1 Map Pack :banghead:

See above. To me that is a good thing I guess.

People who don't own Halo 3 map packs pretty much can't play online at all anymore.

Awol, agree to disagree my man

Sounds good.

IWs COD4 support in terms of map packs....yeah.

They were kinda busy making a new game. Treyarch has the luxury of only having to make maps and sprinkle them with AI triggers. They don't have to develop any tools or code libraries.

Good point.

Again, on the PC side (sorry consolers you didn't get to see it in MW1, but at least you screwed us for MW2 :p)

IW released after COD4 launched two map editors, three revisions to the mod SDKs, 1 map pak, but 2 varation paks (holiday themed maps for Christmas and Easter [if I remember right,]) and the dedicated servers admin package.

Treyarch in terms of mod tools - none, the CoD4 tools were compatible, no SDKs (again the CoD4 were compatible), no holiday themed levels, no dedicated server package (why W@W isn't used as often competively, the dedicated server support is a wreck, which was some of the big frustrations with W@W at launch.)

If Map Paks is all that people care about, you need to get the PC versions. They have tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooons of map paks, and free! :D

Some more PC tidbits.


Console -> PC port confirmed. Began development much later that PS3 and 360 version. Day 1 patch confirmed. Game wasn't done when it was printed.:/


Saddening. But hey, IW made a ton of games I love. Get some money boys. I'm just not buying the PC version. The steam support is great, but you can't have P2P on PC. What if the host is some dude in Argentina with a Pentium 3? What if the game searches for a best host based on CPU performance. Then the guys with the nitrogen cooled i7's will have some amount of host advantage every time they play(which is probably a lot).

People thinking this will be decent because console P2P is decent are wrong. Consoles have unified hardware. It's much easier to do P2P and get consistent results. It's just not possible on a PC platform.

Some more PC tidbits.


Console -> PC port confirmed. Began development much later that PS3 and 360 version. Day 1 patch confirmed. Game wasn't done when it was printed.:/


Saddening. But hey, IW made a ton of games I love. Get some money boys. I'm just not buying the PC version. The steam support is great, but you can't have P2P on PC. What if the host is some dude in Argentina with a Pentium 3? What if the game searches for a best host based on CPU performance. Then the guys with the nitrogen cooled i7's will have some amount of host advantage every time they play(which is probably a lot).

People thinking this will be decent because console P2P is decent are wrong. Consoles have unified hardware. It's much easier to do P2P and get consistent results. It's just not possible on a PC platform.

Oh yeah I could have told you that. They confirmed it during an interview a few days back when they said something like "trying to get it finished" in reference to the PC build.

The leaked build I got my dirty hands on isn't bad, but it does have bugs for starters - dual GPU support. I had to disable the second GPU on the main HTPC to get it to work.

And it is bugged out of its in mind in terms of texture fetching.

I think the Port job was sloppy, and we'll see it when it hits stores. Still a damn good campaign from what I managed to play.