Print 102 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Nov 10 at 7:10 PM

Analysts predict the game will sell 5 million copies the first day

The global economy may still be poor, but some categories are doing well despite the economic downturn. One of those categories is video games. One of the most anticipated video game launches of all times is set to happen this week with a new game called Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

The game is set to hit stores Tuesday and analysts are predicting massive sales for the game. Activision has a lot riding on the launch according to Reuters. Some analysts expect the game to count for as much as 16 cents of Activision's earnings per share for the December quarter.

MKM Partners analyst Eric Handler said, "This is the one game that could buck the economic trend for the holiday season."

The game will sell for about $60 per copy and Activision is partnering with 12 retailers including GameStop and Best Buy to hold over 10,000 midnight launch events across the country. Estimates peg sales for the game at 11 to 13 million units by the end of 2009. Activision CEO Robert Kotick expects the game to be one of the biggest media launches of any kind of all time.

Handler expects that the game will sell about 5 million units on the first day of sales and a total of 7 to 8 million games the first week. Those sales numbers would put the game ahead of last year's top title, Grand Theft Auto IV. The game will carry an M rating for violence and blood. Some of the most popular aspects of the Call of Duty franchise centers around the multiplayer aspects of the game, which the new version is sure to have.

GameStop executive VP Tony Bartel said, "By all indicators, we anticipate 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2' will be the biggest entertainment launch of 2009, as well as the biggest video game launch in GameStop's history."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By bradmshannon on 11/9/2009 12:57:58 PM , Rating: 5
The PC sales will suffer because they have killed dedicated server support.

By pepitojones on 11/9/2009 1:01:00 PM , Rating: 5
I really don't think they are overly concerned with how well the PC version does. They essentially turned it into the console version anyway.

By thekdub on 11/9/2009 1:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't even know anyone who has MW1 for PC. Out of my friends who own MW1, one has it for PS3 and the rest have it for 360.

Call Of Duty might as well be a console exclusive, as unfortunately that is where developers/publishers are focusing their efforts, leaving PCs to deal with console ports and few truly noteworthy PC-only games.

By yomamafor1 on 11/9/2009 1:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually a lot of people have MW1 for PC. In fact, MW1 is pretty much made famous by PC gamers. I for one, own a copy of MW1, and I really liked it (unlike the Crysis junk).

However, this news really concerns me, as IW is pretty much abandoning the core supporters in favor of a seemingly more lucrative console market. They're going to alienate themselves from a lot of fervent PC supporters out there.

By murphyslabrat on 11/9/2009 2:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
I have it for PC also, and short of having some friends to play it with, I don't plan on buying MW2.

One thign I like is the lowered maximum player count, in multiplayer. Gone will be the days of 50 person killhouse.

By djkrypplephite on 11/9/09, Rating: 0
By callmeroy on 11/9/2009 2:37:54 PM , Rating: 5
I've been in a PC gamer since the '80s, yep I said the '80s --- aside from some issues early on in my hobby's history (fumbling with boot disks and memory managers back in the days of the 3.5" floppy) --- I just install a game on my pc and BAM it just works.

By callmeroy on 11/9/2009 2:40:51 PM , Rating: 3
I have nothing against consoles except some niche games I enjoy , like MMOs, are still far superior on PCs.

If consoles came out with keyboards and mice -- with their graphic power today and Internet capabilities I wouldn't be against trying console gaming if it was wholly embraced by MMO developers the way PCs are currently.

(this was supposed to be one post but I hit the button to soon w/o thinking)

By invidious on 11/9/2009 3:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
*cough* shooters *cough* *cough*

By Hiawa23 on 11/9/09, Rating: -1
By damianrobertjones on 11/9/2009 3:37:32 PM , Rating: 3
Same here. Pick the right hardware, which isn't hard and just play. Done

By TSS on 11/9/2009 6:07:33 PM , Rating: 1
That was true up to around 2004. The first series to really start to chip away at that fact was the battlefield series (battlefield multiplayer didn't work decently until 1.4).

today, i play empire: total war, legitimate version, patch 1.5 and it still crashes 2-3 times a day. with 5-6 times serious graphical glitches.

I bought operation flashpoint 2 recently. Couldn't play multiplayer for a week, and it's still laggy as *hell* and he controls are very clunky for shooters. and guess what? it's a console port with no dedicated servers.

i bought champions online, which got nerfed into the ground the day after i bought it (3 days before launch, no refund pre-order), and it launched with a completly broken economy, crafting, all content above 32 (cap = 40), and nobody told us what the hell was happening until far too long after it happened.

i bought left 4 dead. same launch problems, couldn't play multiplayer worth anything. Also it's a great game now but it did launch very empty content wise. kudos to valve for the free updates and focusing on solid gameplay first, but still. With the revenue from steam and HL2 ep3 on the backburner they could've done better.

i've also seen WoW go from a relatively good game to a grind fest supreme. That and the split of starcraft 2 into 3 parts has me worried even blizzard might be faltering. Even with how big MW2 now is, it's still peanuts with what Diablo 3 will decide for alot of people.

The games still work, but barely. Also, they might still work, but what we have to endure to still call it "working" is far more then it used to. Hell any modern game crashes more within a week then the total amount of crashes i've seen from counterstrike, unreal tournament and quake 3 combined. And i used those games like heroin.

By Reclaimer77 on 11/9/09, Rating: -1
By Pryde on 11/9/2009 11:07:17 PM , Rating: 3
May be faster to level but once you hit 80 its not the end of the game.

You must grind to earn Rep.
You must grind to earn Gold.
You must grind to earn Honor Points.
You must grind to get decent Arena Rating.
You must grind to get decent PvE gear.

Naxx, Ulduar, ToTC and now Icecrown are all trivial encounters but you must complete them each week for the gear.

By Alexstarfire on 11/9/2009 11:53:04 PM , Rating: 1
Ohh noes, you must do some actual work to get the good stuff. Give me a break. If you are that lazy just go use some of your "hard earned" USD and buy them, gear and gold anyway. Though if you think rep, honor points, and rating should come quick and easy then MMOs simply aren't for you.

By KashGarinn on 11/10/2009 4:19:28 AM , Rating: 4
I disagree with this.. I have no interest in completing the same content over and over again. I'm there for the challenge, not completing something over and over again.

I've completed at least one, if not 2 versions of each raid, why should I bother doing it again?

Why should I waste my time with a "harder version" of the same raid? It's the exact same raid, same bosses, just tweaked a bit.

Or the daily heroic dungeon grind.. my god, it's so insanely boring that we're using dps classes as tanks and healers just to get some challenge and FUN out of it.

Plus, there's no roleplaying reason why we're completing dungeons over and over again, it's only to get emblems, and nothing else

I really much prefer the 5 man dungeons paradigm as it's easier to group and more fun to play (each individual makes more of a difference), but come on.. the content is a joke.

I thought burning crusade got it right regarding lvl 70 content, you never just facerolled through a dungeon, and the jump from normal to heroic was actually bloody difficult.

Lvl 80 content in Wrath of the lich king is more like farmville on facebook, ur just playing it because you have nothing better to do.

By Reclaimer77 on 11/10/2009 7:10:25 PM , Rating: 3
Lvl 80 content in Wrath of the lich king is more like farmville on facebook, ur just playing it because you have nothing better to do.

I love when people make comments like this, and then I look up their character and they have NO significant hard mode achievments.

Why should I waste my time with a "harder version" of the same raid? It's the exact same raid, same bosses, just tweaked a bit.

Unless you have your Nax protodrake, all your Ulduar 25 hard modes and that drake, and are currently working on Heroic hard mode ToC 25 boss kills, you don't have the right to say the game is too easy.

Your other point is just... well, impossible. Blizzard probably releases more content in WoW then any major MMO EVER. But seriously, it would be impossible for any company to make so much content that you never run the same thing twice. Give me a break. That opinion just reeks of ignorance. What do you expect ? A new dungeon and map zone every week !?

By invidious on 11/9/2009 2:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
Once concoles have a keyboard and mouse then switching might be a viable option. I feel bad for anyone who thinks playing a shooter on a concole is a real shooter. Mouse vs controller is like joystick vs dpad, there is no comparison. But using proper I/O devices would only make it more apparent that concoles are just gimped PCs, so it wont happen.

But I imagine that in a few years the xbox will just have windows on it and its games will be one and the same with pc gaming.

By BansheeX on 11/9/2009 7:06:00 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, certain genres benefit immensely from KB/Mouse. Once consoles embrace that truth and include both input types, the PC model just doesn't appeal to me anymore. The console model is a model of certainty for developers and users. PC developers can't utilize the latest media format or the latest GPU tech because they fear lost sales from people with older hardware. Users can jump right into consoles very cheaply compared to PC, never have to worry about driver issues or configuration problems, or background bloatware/viruses affecting something.

By realmp06 on 11/9/2009 7:20:48 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know if consoles will ever have keyboards, but there is a possibility there could be one (Xbox 360 has keypad). For instance, if MS decided to use their keypad to have certain buttons do certain things in sequence, that could be something new.

However, I don't think this is a liable option, because MS is investing their money into this motion game thing I can't remember off the top of my head. lol.

By Akrovah on 11/9/2009 7:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think the more pressing reason consoles don't have much in the way of KB/M input is simple usage model. Console typically connect to a TV, you use them from your couch. Where do you put the Mouse and Keyboard?

By ExarKun333 on 11/9/2009 3:05:41 PM , Rating: 5
Lots of hassles with putting a CD/DVD in a drive and hitting "start" on a PC.

Hmm, does your mom start your xbox games for you and let you know when they are ready?

By S3anister on 11/9/2009 4:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's been years since i've even had to swap CD/DVDs out of my computer i just use a virtual drive, it's way easier to game on a PC in my own opinion.

By tviceman on 11/10/2009 10:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
And I don't even need a virtual drive. I just use steam and d2d.

By realmp06 on 11/9/2009 7:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
But you have to figure that a lot more people are going to have consoles than gaming PCs, thats just how business works. I do have a gaming PC and the 360 and I love both (and yes, I do have Crysis on PC). But the business of 'gaming' is starting to get out of focus from PCs to consoles instead.

By createcoms on 11/9/2009 9:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
(unlike the Crysis junk)

Ha funny, the two Crysis games are the best FPS shooters I've played since Quake (all of them), single-player wise, as I didn't touch their multiplayer - was and have been too busy with Battlefield MP-wise. I'm longing for another Crysis release or some other such creation that combines a storyline with killer graphics and immersing gameplay.

Why am I replying to your opinion with my own? Because you spewed forth your 2 cents I felt obliged to add mine.

By Noya on 11/10/2009 12:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
Crysis games are the best FPS shooters

I agree, but due to the economics that everyone on this blog is commenting on, we're probably out of luck for a new Crysis.

While run N guns like CoD can be fun, the endlessly re-spawning enemies are a joke and the overall monotony wears on me.

By HaB1971 on 11/9/2009 1:26:02 PM , Rating: 5
Well I have MW1 on PC and I will not be buying MW2.

Yeah it might as well be a console game as PC gamers are considered an after thought these days. Develop for fixed hardware only and then tell the PC gamers they have extra features such as Text Chat and Mouse control !!! Wow, who would have thought they'd be giving us Mouse control in 2009. Bleeding edge technology there.

IWnet, what a joke

By The0ne on 11/9/2009 1:42:06 PM , Rating: 2
yea, it seems they are not appreciating the PC gamers that made their CoD so popular :) Still love the first one, was pretty cool although easy and short.

By murphyslabrat on 11/9/2009 2:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, it's more of an interactive movie. I love it, and everyone I've made play it has too.

My 8-year-old brother has probably beat the campaign three times, but it's still worth the attention of seasoned gamers.

By invidious on 11/9/2009 3:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
If you thought it was easy try the harder modes. I got stuck many many times. The farris wheel is near implossible on harder modes.

By The0ne on 11/9/2009 3:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
All this talk is making me feel nostalgic :) That and the New Super Mario Bro's Wii game. Jesus, so long ago that I've play Atari and NES (10 years old)

Going to have to see where I put my CoD CD's now :D

By NA1NSXR on 11/9/2009 7:43:12 PM , Rating: 5
Playing a FPS on a console is like eating steak with a spoon.

By Nfarce on 11/9/2009 9:23:14 PM , Rating: 3
Hahaha! Well stated. I bought not one, not two, but three shooters on the PS3 with and went back to the PC for said genre. (I absolutely HATE the controller for shooters). Of course, being an old school PC gamer since the early 90s, mouse & keyboard shooting is in my DNA.

Now I can race on the PS3 like nobody's business with the controller (nearly as well as with a steering wheel on PC racing games), but with racing, it's a much more linear environment. I mean, how many buttons do you need to map and memorize for racing? That's what I thought.

By jonmcc33 on 11/9/2009 2:00:05 PM , Rating: 4
I really don't think they are overly concerned with how well the PC version does. They essentially turned it into the console version anyway.

The PC is what started Call of Duty to begin with. There is a massive community that has been with the series from the start - when Infinity Ward was first formed. That community followed Call of Duty from a heavily successful EA game called Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.

The PC community was also there to make Call of Duty: Modern Warfare the success that it was. They are still there.

Infinity Ward has abandoned the PC gaming community that made them. Creating nothing more than a console port that PC gamers loathe.

FYI that the PC version, Infinity Ward/Activision does not have to pay licensing fees like they do for the PS3/X360. Not to mention that FPS gaming is more dominant on the PC than the consoles.

By callmeroy on 11/9/2009 2:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yep - I own the entire series of Call of Duty games that they released for the PC...just completed the single player campaign (for about the 500th time) on COD:MW again just this past weekend....

I really thought MW was awesome -- its just way too short.

By LordanSS on 11/9/2009 9:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well, MW2 for the PC, priced at 60 USDs... for someone like me, who does not play on multiplayer, that's way too overpriced for a (very) short campaign game. They're really riding on the "brand name", for pricing it that high. Don't know of any PC game released lately, even AAA titles, that'd cost that much.

MW1 was really great, but this time, I'll pass. Got myself Dragon Age instead, and doubt I'll regret doing so.

By abhaxus on 11/10/2009 5:07:15 AM , Rating: 2
There's a great article in PC Gamer about the need for PC games to be priced at 60 like console games. It makes very valid points. Adjusted for inflation we are paying dramatically less for PC games now than we did 10-15 years ago. If games were priced at $60, that would mean the actual profit margin possible on PC games would be significantly higher than consoles, and would make developing for them that much more compelling. The extra development time would be outweighed by the huge increase in profit.

actual cost of replication/packaging/distribution (really rough estimate, nothing to back this up): $10
cost of license for PS3 or 360: $15 (taken from various sources)
retailer cost: 48-52
msrp: 60

so a retailer makes about 15% profit on a new game. a publisher/developer might split $25 off a new game for consoles. For PCs, they would split $40. That would make PC development much more palatable. Right now they make slightly more on PC titles than console. In a world where all games are $60 (and still less than we paid in 1995 adjusted for inflation), they would make 60% more. Windows 7's popularity will bring more gamers up to DX10 and 11 standards so development will be easier as well.

I just don't understand why they use steam for DRM, but don't allow dedicated servers. Stupid.

By Strunf on 11/10/2009 8:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
Not everything needs to be adjusted to inflation, if you adjust the price of a PC from 40 years ago to today value it would cost the price of a supercomputer (or not far from it) etc... as time goes by things will tend to cost the price of the raw materials used to make them, this is valid on all products for mass consumption, on IT is not really the case cause for some reason people seem ok with paying way more for something than it costs to make, Vivendi (the owners of activision) is making billions of profit... some expect MW2 will sell over 10 million copies this year, how much you think is profit?

Games are overpriced be it on consoles or PC, but if people are ready to shell out $60 for a game stupid would be them if they sell it for less than that.

By abhaxus on 11/10/2009 1:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
If anything, as the cost of developing an A list game has risen, so should the cost to the end user, inflation or not. Developing a game of the year caliber game now is dramatically more expensive than in past years. Or do you really think it cost IW the same to develop Modern Warfare 2 as it did Microprose to develop X-Com?

Maybe it's just because I'm older, but I didn't flinch at buying MW2 last night for 60. I have never been a new-game-every-2-weeks kinda guy anyway, but an extra 10 bucks didn't seem like that big a deal. Maybe if I was still a teenager it would be a problem. Now, I'd say it's 2 less trips to starbucks, but it's not really that either :)

By LordanSS on 11/10/2009 3:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
You are right in one thing: the cost of producing/developing games has increased a lot, compared to what it was in the past.

There is a catch though: there are much more customers now than there were in the older days as well. The number of people/homes with computers worldwide has increased drastically, and so have computer game sales. The issue is, if a game sold like a million units in the days of old, it'd be considered an amazing, flabergasting, wtfpwnbbqkthx success. Nowadays, if it doesn't sell much more than that, big publishers think it wasn't worth the trouble.

PS: And as far as I know, game prices (and monthly subscriptions) have gone up quite a bit compared to what they used to be, so I take it they already added the "inflation".

By Capt Caveman on 11/9/2009 4:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
9v9 multi kills it for me.

I'll pass.

By meepstone on 11/9/2009 6:51:30 PM , Rating: 1
20v20 or even 15v15 is retarded. maps are too small and everyone ends up picking the perk x3 frag nade and its nade fest with no skill. i'd do 9v9 over retarded number of ppl on small map any day. rather be dead from someone with talent killing me then dodging a nade every 5 seconds or an infinite air strike / helicopter.

By riku0116 on 11/10/2009 12:35:31 AM , Rating: 2
Find some better servers with nade rules... Oh wait, YOU CANT DO THAT IN MW2! - -

By Strunf on 11/10/2009 8:19:30 AM , Rating: 2
You just make bigger maps... the maps on MW were quite nice for 32 players.

By KoolAidMan1 on 11/10/2009 7:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
I've logged about five hours in MW2 multi since last Thursday. While the 9v9 limitation sucks on paper, you should also know that the maps are specifically designed for that player count. 6x6 and 9v9 are optimal for the size and layout of the maps that are included, this isn't BF2 or Tribes. Any more than 18 players and it would be an overcrowded mess.

Then again, there are people that enjoy loading TF2 servers with 32 players or other stupid nonsense like that, but whatever. :)

By KCjoker on 11/9/2009 7:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Companies go away from PC because of the fear of piracy. However they fail to talk about the fact consoles games are pirated a lot as well. Heck CODMW2 was pirated and available for Xbox 360 last week.

By jmke on 11/10/2009 7:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
While multiplayer version might be popular, the majority will still buy it for the single player experience :)

F@%# Infinity Ward, right in thier stupid faces...
By Iaiken on 11/9/2009 1:17:27 PM , Rating: 5
Most of those sales will be console gamers as no self respecting PC gamer is going to give up COD:MW1's dedicated servers and modding community.

You know something is wrong when EA-Dice is calling you out on the stupidity of your actions.

What actions?

Well try this on for size, COD:MW2 will not use dedicated servers. There will also be no user-developed content as they have decided to not release an SDK. Finally, the game is DX9.1c.

What does this mean for PC players?

- No dedicated servers
- No mods
- No clan play
- Complete reliance on IWNet
- Reliance on an idiotic matchmaking system
- Smaller battle sizes (9v9 is the max)
- Even if you have a copy, you can't play it online until the game is enabled on Tuesday.
- Restricted to the same DX9 limitations as COD:MW1
- The game may not allow for hardware AA.

Combine the above with a 14-hour single player campaign and you really have to ask yourself if it is worth the $60 asking price to play what is essentially a COD:Halo full conversion mod. :P

Cancelled my pre-order, sent them a photocopy of the receipt and told them where they can stuff it.

Will it change anything other than saving me $60? Nope... according to Inifity Ward, PC gamers are a "loud minority".

By Ristogod on 11/9/2009 2:10:01 PM , Rating: 4
How do you figure there is going to be any less cheaters when there is no way to kick those players anymore? At least in the previous versions with dedicated servers and punkbuster, cheaters, and simply annoying people could be removed. That is no longer an option.

Forget MW2 and IW. Get Bad Company 2 instead when it comes out.

By cleco on 11/9/2009 2:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
Probably referring to VAC? The worst anti cheat system ever.

And like you, I'm patiently waiting BC 2

By Glix on 11/9/2009 2:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
No there will still be cheaters, vac isn't perfect. And with no Dedicated servers, keeping cheaters from spoiling your game online will be harder...

By Golgatha on 11/9/2009 3:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeap, and no dedicated server admins to kick the cheaters either.

By The0ne on 11/9/2009 1:44:48 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if EA is going to ruin the next battlefield the same way? :)

got to have mods...that's where the replay value comes in! :)

By InternetGeek on 11/9/2009 2:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
thats where you got it wrong. Your replay value its the dent in their profits. Hell, if they had their way you' have to pay everytime you'd fired up the game!

By The0ne on 11/9/2009 3:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused by your statement. I said mods offer replay value. I said nothing about eating at their profits although that could be argue both ways. So where is it that I got it wrong?

They could do a Blizzard on us, sure but only time will tell. But I'm talking about mods and replay value.

RE: F@%# Infinity Ward, right in thier stupid faces...
By eid on 11/9/2009 3:08:06 PM , Rating: 3
Ars Technica has an excellent post regarding the shortcomings of the PC version

You forgot to mention:
-P2P host system
-Inability to pick the host or choose not to host
-5 sec game freeze if the host decides to leave the game
-removed console commands
-removed demo/replay recording

and my favorite quote:

"Moriarte: Ignoring, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?

Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings."

By EglsFly on 11/9/2009 10:29:25 PM , Rating: 3

No better way to protest....

I have enjoyed MW1 and continue to enjoy World at War.
Been playing a lot of COD World At War, on the [NC] clan server (hard core/tactical):
42 Person Multiplayer, Admins that manage the server by kicking the necessary players, everything that MW2 CANT do.

By Iaiken on 11/9/2009 4:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
I also thought like you with the game, but after playing it I really change my mind... and realized how stupid people is when they base their actions from rumors and not facts.

No, no you didn't think like me at all. You are looking at this from the perspective of a 360 console gamer whose idea of online multiplayer was defined by games like Halo.

You obviously don't know how most multiplayer mods work if you think they "divide" the community. Instead, I look at it as adding variety. You can play arcade mode if you like, or hardcore, or tactical realism, or scenario play or whatever people can think of that other people will enjoy. The possibilities are essentially limitless.

You then go on to state that the value of the game comes from it's mutliplayer, but what Infinity Ward has done here is actively engage in gutting the multiplayer element by forcing everyone into an XBL style matchmaking system.

The smaler 9 vs 9 is not that bad... i guess it would be better a 12 v 12 max but use your brain again (if you have one)... a 24 vs 24 is stupid... throw a grenade and you kill half the team... COD is not battlefield... the tactics on COD are more Swat like... small teams.

This sounds conspicuously like opinion in the absence of fact. I've played on 50vs50 tactical realism servers with absolutely massive maps that require that many people to even give people something to shoot at. Hell, even the normal maps (with the exception of backlot) are enough to support 24v24 with plenty of elbow room.

Your notion that the game is SWAT-like is as asinine as it is narrow. There are MANY ways to play COD:MW1 for PC and tact-squad play is just one of them.

DX9 is not a limitation.

Yes, yes it is. Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge because you are just another idiot follower of the following console equation:

ZOMG1080i++slowassresponstime+blurfilter=goodgrap x

No, not at all. Go ahead and play it on a 1920x1200 (or bigger) monitor without AA and tell me it looks awesome. It won't. One of the "faults" of PC gaming is that you can notice the jaggies in all of their angular glory. You will notice any problems with the textures, particles and lighting.

Which brings me to the textures particles and light of COD:MW2. All of this is smoke and mirrors on a big screen TV. They just use blur filters to make things look good, this doesn't actual add to the detail, but rather detracts from it in an effort to cover up the shortcomings of fixed hardware. The 360 replacement is still 5 years (or more) out and we've already hit the graphical limitations of the hardware and it's supporting software.

We've moved on and DX11 will be opening up compute shading/reflection, higher detail textures, improved texture filtering, improved AA, improved AF, tessellation and implicit parellellism. All of that is on top of the shopping list of improvements that were brought by DX10.

Go back to your console kiddie... :P

By invidious on 11/9/2009 3:07:53 PM , Rating: 3
- Smaller battle sizes (9v9 is the max)
- The game may not allow for hardware AA.
I did not know about these two, kind of the nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned. $10 more than usual to get less content than usual? I will pass. It is a shame because I have been waiting for a good shooter, I haven't really gotten into one online sense BF2.

Maybe I will just go back to CS, best $20 I ever spent.

By abhaxus on 11/10/2009 5:12:11 AM , Rating: 2
the hardware AA one is FUD. Just was playing with 2x AA in 1680x1050 on a 8800GTS SLI setup. 4x AA would probably work if I had the 640mb versions.

Gonna pick up a 5850 as soon as they are available :)

By lagitup on 11/9/2009 4:36:15 PM , Rating: 3
I'm a PC gamer, and I have MW2 on pre-order... I don't use "dedicated servers", and I never modded my COD4 game.

Then you've not played CoD4 online. See for more.

By FlyTexas on 11/9/2009 6:34:10 PM , Rating: 1
You are correct, I have never played COD4 online...

I play very few games online, I much prefer single player games.

If I want to spend time with people, I'll either spend it with my kids, or reading posts on DT. ;)

By Ryanman on 11/9/2009 7:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
While I respect your multiplayer tastes, I reject the idea that the single player is worth 60 dollars. It's supposed to hover around 6 hours of play. Given, reviewers have said that it was amazing, but $10 an hour for something that will still pale in comparison to Half Life 2 isn't worth it for many of us.

RE: F@%# Infinity Ward, right in thier stupid faces...
By walk2k on 11/9/09, Rating: -1
By walk2k on 11/10/2009 12:23:26 AM , Rating: 1
Sounds like someone is just mad at losing their "hacked" servers. ...

By Reclaimer77 on 11/9/2009 4:30:26 PM , Rating: 3
I want to thank you for posting this. I was pretty jazzed up to buy this game, until reading your post.

Now ? No thanks. I don't see any point in paying for the PC version of what amounts to a bad port of a console game. Stripped of features, mods, and won't even have cutting edge graphics.


oh jeez
By meepstone on 11/9/2009 12:54:18 PM , Rating: 1
Modern Warefare 2 could be epic!

but my money is on Modern Warfare 2 selling more copies.

RE: oh jeez
By Naviblue on 11/9/2009 2:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
As far as PC Modern Warfare is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised if the torrent downloads outnumber actual sales, IW/Activision has totally disregarded the PC community.

What would be even funnier is that someone is able to host dedicated servers and all the torrented games are able to play on them all because IW/Activision are being greedy.

RE: oh jeez
By FlyTexas on 11/9/2009 4:31:00 PM , Rating: 2

They might sell more copies than COD4, and prove their point.

I spent the first year playing COD4 with a "borrowed" copy, before buying it when it went on sale.

Now I have MW2 on pre-order with Steam (it is downloading as I type this), because it is just easier than "borrowing" a copy.

For the record, never used servers, dedicated or otherwise. Don't care since I don't play on-line.

Sheesh, not everyone is as hard core as you are...

RE: oh jeez
By VashHT on 11/9/2009 4:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I liked COD4's single player you are completely insane if you think only "hardcore" gamers play it online. I would never pay 60$ for 5 hours of single player with no co-op, that is a ridiculous amount of money to pay for such a short game. If you want to that's fine with me, but I'd say you're rather loose with your hard earned cash.

Why are you arguing with people anyway, people obviously have a beef with the f***ed up MP and this discussion has nothing to do with the SP.

RE: oh jeez
By FlyTexas on 11/9/2009 6:37:17 PM , Rating: 2

I'm sorry if you took that the wrong way.

I don't think only "hardcore" players play online.

I DO think that only "hardcore" players want to mod their game, use their own servers, etc.

I would actually MUCH prefer matchmaking and some level of controls from the company, it cleans up the mess.

I played COUNTLESS hours of CounterStrike back when it was in the 1.0 - 1.2 days... The cheats, exploits, etc. were a headache and a half. I like the newer systems myself, keeps most of the trolls out. :)

question for ps3 version
By dwlive1980 on 11/9/2009 2:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone know if the PS3 version will support kb/mouse ?

RE: question for ps3 version
By Hiawa23 on 11/9/09, Rating: 0
RE: question for ps3 version
By dwlive1980 on 11/9/2009 3:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
I was just asking because I own a PS3 and did not bother to research the 360 version. The fact that currently there are ZERO games that support a KB/Mouse on both consoles should have nothing to do with this title- I think it's sad. FPS play much better on a KB/Mouse

RE: question for ps3 version
By Hiawa23 on 11/9/2009 4:59:48 PM , Rating: 1
I was just asking because I own a PS3 and did not bother to research the 360 version. The fact that currently there are ZERO games that support a KB/Mouse on both consoles should have nothing to do with this title- I think it's sad. FPS play much better on a KB/Mouse

My point was consoles are consoles not PCs, so don't expect mouse/KB support. Simple as that. Has everything to do with this title. 95-100% of consoles disc based games are controller only & you epxect one game to have KB/mouse support. Okay, right...

RE: question for ps3 version
By bighairycamel on 11/9/2009 4:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. Unreal Tournament 3 supported keyboard and mouse on the PS3 (not sure about 360).

RE: question for ps3 version
By abhaxus on 11/10/2009 7:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't looked for the PS3, but I know there's a peripheral out there for the 360 that allows a standard USB keyboard/mouse setup to be plugged in and act like a controller. Which would be a huge advantage given the size of hitboxes on console games due to making up for the inaccuracies of the controller.

FAIL !!!
By Soldier1969 on 11/9/2009 1:57:08 PM , Rating: 1
Me and 3 others are boycotting this. Our money is going to EA games and Dice for bad company 2 for PC. You know a game released the right way with ded servers support and a beta ahead of time next month. Piss on activision and Infin Ward!

RE: FAIL !!!
By FlyTexas on 11/9/2009 4:28:11 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, because EA is such a great company.

Sheesh, what short memories you guys have.

RE: FAIL !!!
By syphon on 11/10/2009 9:38:19 AM , Rating: 2
And I am sure that Activision and Inifin Ward are hurting from your Boycott.

What about Call of Duty: Vietnam or Desert Storm?
By Lord 666 on 11/9/2009 4:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
The WWII theme is getting a bit overplayed... I actually stopped playing WaW. Looking forward to MW2, but would really enjoy a Vietnam era game with same game play of the other CoDs.

Vietnam or Desert Storm based games would be fun.

By FlyTexas on 11/9/2009 4:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that...

The nice thing about Desert Storm is that you could do some great historical work based on it, and Gulf War 2 as well.

Vietnam's only problem is that we lost, or rather, gave up. Not a very happy ending.

What about Korea?

By Lord 666 on 11/9/2009 4:58:34 PM , Rating: 2
"The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the
most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."
- Robert Lynd

Another lost PC sale here
By werepossum on 11/9/2009 5:44:20 PM , Rating: 1
I too have every Call of Duty game made for the PC, including WaW which I've yet to even load. I loved COD: MW even though it was frightfully short, but I wouldn't touch MW2 with a ten foot pole. $60 for a sub-four hour cheapo console port single player (no prone, no lean) and crippled multiplayer? Chance not. 1998 is calling, they want their game design back.

Here's hoping that PC sales are so bad that Infinity Ward either fixes the next one or better yet leaves PC gaming for good, making room for those who will design to the PC's strengths rather than to consoles' limitations. You don't have to dance with the ones that brung ya, IW, but at least don't piss on us.

With each new Infinity Ward game growing shorter and more limited, someone should project how many more before it degenerates into nothing more than opening cinematics followed by a form to send IW more money,

RE: Another lost PC sale here
By KoolAidMan1 on 11/10/2009 6:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
It would be a shame if IW completely abandoned the PC, even given the imposing of IWnet on the platform.

This is the best game the company has turned out, hands down.

RE: Another lost PC sale here
By KoolAidMan1 on 11/10/2009 6:50:26 AM , Rating: 2
And FWIW, the game took me about 7 hours to beat on Regular. I moved pretty fast so I figure the average person (ie - not asperger's having speedrunner shut-in) will take longer. A friend of mine that played it on Veteran beat it in a little over 9.

The overall length is about the same as other CoD games. It does have significantly more unique settings, /[way]/ more than what were in MW1, which tells me that the individual sections are in shorter chunks but that there are more of them.

Early Sales
By transamdude95 on 11/9/2009 1:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they will count the 100,000+ that have purchased the game early in the launch day statistics...

RE: Early Sales
By SiliconJon on 11/9/2009 1:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
Presales count as day-1 sales since the transaction is not complete until the release day. At least that's the way I've read it before, but I can't recall the magic keywords to pull up a google result to back that up.

By FlyTexas on 11/9/2009 4:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
Dedicated servers? Yea, whatever... I get that they are important to some players, so if you don't like it, don't buy it.

I pre-ordered it on Steam, I don't play multi-player, just single player. I have more hours into COD4 than I care to think about.

I'm sure MW2 will be the same way.

PS. I don't get these games on the console, I never figured out how to use a controller when keyboard and mouse work so well...

By realmp06 on 11/9/2009 7:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
Keyboard and mouse is good, don't get me wrong, you have more options and macros you can do vs. the PC.

However, the consoles controllers have to be simple for the different kind of crowds. Not everyone can figure out a complicated PC controllers :P. (WSAD) whats that? lol, jk. thats basics right there. forward, back, left, right for the consoles ppl who dont know. :P

By danobrega on 11/9/2009 2:05:00 PM , Rating: 3
Is it just me or "could be" posted as news doesn't make much sense. Isn't news supposed to be factual? If you start writing about things that "could be" where is it going to end?


More bull@@*$ hype
By keitaro on 11/9/2009 2:21:58 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder how much these retailers got paid to host midnight sales and other promotional perks. It's too there isn't a retailer out there that is willing to say "Because of the direction that Infinity Ward and Activision are taking, we will not be selling Modern Warfare 2." Best Buy, Gamestop, and even Walmart are trying to push a shitty game into everyone's living room.

RE: More bull@@*$ hype
By FlyTexas on 11/9/2009 4:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I'll bite...

Why on Earth would Wally World or Best Buy give two hoots over what IW or Activision are doing? They buy and resell products, no more and no less.

Their jobs are to make their shareholders money, not to get into a debate with hard core gamers about dedicated servers.

By walk2k on 11/9/2009 4:33:42 PM , Rating: 3
"the Call of Duty franchise centers around the multiplayer aspects of the game, which the new version is sure to have ."

Wow Kreskin, you think it might have multiplayer? What leads you to believe that?

Is it the fact that it's a sequel to one of the most sucessful multi-player games in history? Or did you think it's still selling well even though it's over a year old because of its ~8 hour single-player mode?

Or is it the fact that every review and preview and fan-site has confirmed the fact that YES OF COURSE it will have mutli-player?

Really, I don't usually nit-pick on things like this but how about getting someone that is even slightly familiar with the subject (or can at least read 1 web article) to write the story??

Hope it fails.
By an0dize on 11/9/2009 3:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
Despite being an activision/blizzard shareholder, I can't help but hope this fails because I hate seeing developers abandon the PC as a gaming platform.

The way I see it; PCs are for gaming and consoles are for JRPGs.

Really good game
By KoolAidMan1 on 11/10/2009 6:43:37 AM , Rating: 2
I've had the game on the 360 since last Thursday. It is really excellent all the way around, expect to see countless numbers of 9+ reviews and GOTY awards (even though Uncharted 2 is the better single player action game, IMO the best since HL2 and the episodes). The MW2 single player is excellent and insane, significantly better than MW1, the co-op "special ops" missions are awesome, and the multiplayer game is fantastic. They took the MMO aspect of grinding your character to a new level in MW2. There are a ridiculous number of weapon accessories, perks, and special ability unlocks now. Some people will hate not having every single thing at the start, I expect that it will keep most people hooked into the game just like it did in MW1.

My ONLY beef is that I will never grow to fully accept, nor will I ever be as good, playing fast multiplayer games with a gamepad instead of a mouse and keyboard. Some people excel at it, I'm not one of those guys. Because of this I'm thinking of also getting the PC version on Steam. I had serious misgivings for all the reasons that have been discussed a million times, but after playing with the 360 version for a while I'm not so sure. Lag has never been an issue even with the relatively limited number of players in the time I've had it (60000 which grew to 10000).

I watched someone in Europe streaming MW2 multiplayer on the PC earlier tonight ( and he said that lag was never once a problem for him. Watching him play I believe it. The game was smooth and responsive and it really turned me on to the idea of picking up the PC version as well, since again my ONLY problem with the 360 version is the control scheme.

I dunno, everything I've seen so far seems really good on both platforms, and I was expecting to really hate the PC version based on everything I'd read. I'm a bit more optimistic after seeing it in action tonight, we'll see.

Screw Infinity Ward
By MagicSquid on 11/9/2009 11:02:41 PM , Rating: 1
I've been a huge fan of the Call of Duty series ever since the first one and I've been eagerly awaiting Modern Warfare 2. I've even competed in leagues and ladders in COD1 and 2, but I'm not going to purchase MW2 due to their decision to cut dedicated servers from the game.

There's no way to justify the price of the game which amounts to a quick single player campaign and a slap in the face from the devs.

By Freezebyte on 11/9/09, Rating: 0
"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki