Print 48 comment(s) - last by Omega215D.. on Nov 17 at 1:23 PM

Activision's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 rakes in $310M in one day of sales in the U.S. and U.K.

Activision's recent launch of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was an overwhelming success, with one-day sales in the United States and United Kingdom raking in an estimated $310 million USD.

In the first 24 hours of launch, Activision estimates it sold 4.7 million copies of the video game.

The video game industry has struggled for more than six months consecutively, with some game executives unsure if the 2009 holiday shopping season would save the industry.  Activision has certainly done its part, with no other games scheduled for release in 2009 expected to come anywhere near the latest CoD video game debut.

Furthermore, November game sales are expected to rebound -- directly because of the Activision game launch -- though no other blockbuster game titles are expected any time soon.

The 2008 launch of Take Two's Grand Theft Auto IV racked up 3.6 million units in sales in the first 24 hours, with game industry analysts anticipating a CoD game launch just as big.

Hollywood blockbusters can make up to $60 million opening weekend, but it's rare to find a video game smash Hollywood movie debuts.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is available for around $60 on Microsoft-powered Windows PCs, Microsoft Xbox 360, and Sony PlayStation 3 game consoles.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: In a word...
By Gul Westfale on 11/13/2009 9:04:39 AM , Rating: 5
only 18 players instead of the 64 in BF2, and still people buy this shit. damn it, indeed.

RE: In a word...
By Omega215D on 11/13/2009 9:47:11 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know about you but I actually enjoy the single player campaign and story line on the PC version. My brother has the PS3 version but I cannot stand using a controller to play FPSes.

Besides, in Modern Warfare 1 huge maps led to constant spawn killing and nade spamming which got annoying quick, even in the dedicated servers.

I am looking forward to Bad Company 2 if EA decides to make it a proper PC game (unlike the buggy BF2).

Now I just have to beat MW2, FEAR 2, NFS: Shift.... well can't really beat it, and GTA IV. Left 4 Dead 2 will be fun but I'll hold off on it until I get a nice break to play all nighters online.

RE: In a word...
By The0ne on 11/13/2009 9:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
The single/campaign mode has always been fun for me and my family members too. For MoH and CoD we haven't even tried the online gameplay at all. However, for BF we love the online :)

I was mistaken about the sales of Uncharted and MW not going to sell well. Apparently they are for one reason or another. Good to see regardless.

So many good games for PC and so little time to play them! Damn me for not being as young with time to waste anymore :) Well, waste on games hehe

RE: In a word...
By MrBlastman on 11/13/2009 12:24:21 PM , Rating: 5
I have a friend (whom I chastized) who accepted a free copy of the PC version of CoD: MW 2 and tried playing it online... Tried. When I was picking on him over Steam he then went on to describe his playing experience.

Anyone who played games such as Mechwarrior 2 Mercenaries, Rainbow Six or Rogue Spear online back in the day already will know how it went--it was horrible. It was peer-2-peer networking in all its glory, well, it was more inglorious than anything.

Basically, it went like this: He'd join a server, the host would have a Zero (0) ping, all others on the server would have between a 100 and 200 ping. The round would start. He'd get hit once or twice (one or two bullets), then suddenly die. The replay would kick in showing how he died and he then saw his character being sprayed for a solid few seconds of full auto fire while being butchered. In other words, a whole magazine was dumped into him. Interesting, right? Well, as it wore on (this was several sessions), he began to realize that if you were on the hosts team, you won ever game, since well, the host has a Zero ping so they hit everything they shoot at well before everything else has a chance to respond.

Swell right?

It gets better. Several times the host would lag out or crash for whatever reason and then all of a sudden, the game code would put someone else in charge as host. The lag would skyrocket due to someone with a crappy connection taking over or some random person living in Uzbekistan would then become the host (I didn't know they had computers in Uzbekistan? Go figure.). Statistically speaking, about 9 out of 16 games led to the host dropping or the lag becoming so FUBAR that it basically caused an end to the session.

So, really, what does all this remind me of? Hmm, memories of Mechwarrior 2 and Rogue Spear come to mind. Specifically, memories of sitting on the blasted MSN Gaming Zone (Worst... online... game... service... ever) waiting to start a game of Rogue Spear, getting in the game, shooting at three people having my bullets go straight through them and then all of a sudden my character keeling over because they weren't in front of me all along... they were actually BEHIND ME! Thank you Peer 2 Peer lag!

So, this is purely conjecture formed from anecdotal ( ;) )evidence but, I think it is solid in its own right. Said individual whom partook in the CoD sessions plays Team Fortress 2 regularly and... never has any problems. It is always perfect.

CoD: MW 2... is a turd online.

Single Player? Sounds great, I hear it is awesome... all 4-5 hours of it. So you are what, paying for 7-8 feature films worth of action and only receiving 2? Deal of the century! Not.

RE: In a word...
By biggsjm on 11/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: In a word...
By MrBlastman on 11/13/2009 1:12:35 PM , Rating: 5
I have no clue--I've not played it. :) I do trust his assumption and can tell you this:

If you are in a peer2peer game, it goes like this:

host->player.a->player.b->player.c->p layer.d---|
^^----------------------------------------------< br />
So you can see, it goes back to the host eventually. Now, the host, the host goes right back to himself right away, so, the host has a... zero ping to himself. Just try pinging and see what you get. ;)

So yes, the host possibly has a 0 ping(depending on how they coded the p2p code, from experience it was exactly this in Rogue Spear, but not in Mechwarrior 2 Mercs). If one guy in the bunch pops in with a 500+ ping (say from another country), he fouls it up for EVERYONE because they are bottlenecked through this one guy. This is why peer 2 peer sucks.

Likewise, if you host a dedicated server out of your home, then use a client in your home to connect to your own server, your ping will be 0 - 5 ms (or something like that) and the players will be, well, whatever their ping is. The connection is more like:

| = connection between x and O
. = spacer (because DT doesn't like empty spaces)


As you see, each player will have an individual ping respective of their relationship with just O, the server, rather than their relationship with and through each player. Thus, dedicated servers are superior for this reason alone and many more.

RE: In a word...
By jonmcc33 on 11/13/2009 2:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
I can vouch for that. I play Rainbow Six Vegas 2 and when I do co-op terrorist hunt I always end up with 20-25 kills and the other 3 guests end up with much less. Whenever I join someone hosting it is the same way. The host gets all the kills and guests get squat.

RE: In a word...
By bighairycamel on 11/13/2009 3:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think they've moved past the P2P bottelnecking days. I am not claiming to know this as fact so feel free to provide evidence otherwise, but I believe the game is run on a "listen" server where O in your diagram would be the player hosting (think dedicated server except someone is playing on the server as well as hosting). The game would bottleneck if the host had a slow connection, but not if the clients did.

RE: In a word...
By Myg on 11/13/2009 4:40:21 PM , Rating: 3
I think your mixing up p2p with some sort of token ring networking scheme.

Peer to peer generally means that each person has an individual connection to every other individual, thus nullifying any need for a central server during the session (of course there needs to be a system in place to provide all the endpoints for each client for that session)

What your describing is some sort of internal peer relaying system, which would only be usefull for applications that arnt sensitive to latency.

Such systems could be integrated into a p2p based network code, but it would be how the game is made to react to lost packets/waiting for packets/etc is what would define its performance and would end up with such situations that you are describing.

RE: In a word...
By Myg on 11/13/2009 4:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Just to note: p2p is far superior from a higher level conceptual and long term view then dedicated servers.

One of the largest things stopping p2p from being a mainstay in network design for games is the immense issues caused by home routers/firewalls, since of all the varying makes/models behave differently with no single standard NAT type (a handful of different commonly used ones) it is impossible to account for all of the outstanding networking issues. Not to mention, how much of a nightmare it is to instruct the average Joe to forward ports/etc and expect them to be able to do it.

RE: In a word...
By Strunf on 11/14/2009 8:17:17 PM , Rating: 4
"Just to note: p2p is far superior from a higher level conceptual and long term view then dedicated servers."
Superior in what? when you're sharing data that doesn't change p2p is clearly faster as you receive and transmit data to others at the same time, this is only possible cause everyone knows how many pieces are there and where they start and end, in games that's not the case, by the time you receive some data and want to send it to others it will be pointless for them, in games everyone has to receive the SAME data at the SAME TIME, thats why the most efficient way in games is with a central host be it a server or not.
A server on the internet will always have a better ping to each player than between players, and since the data on the server is always the most recent one you only go play<->server and not player<->server<->player, you just don't care what the others players are doing,.

The thing about routers is not an issue today, UPNP has been out for some years now and most if not all routers support it, the XBox and the PS3 players would be screaming without it.

RE: In a word...
By bighairycamel on 11/13/2009 1:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the same thing, I heard IWNET just displays bars not ping.

Am I the only PC gamer around here that thinks the amount of b*tching and moaning is absurd? And I don't even plan on getting this for PC.

Don't like it? Don't play it. People need to quit crying over spilled milk already. Obviously it hasn't affected sales.

RE: In a word...
By MrBlastman on 11/13/2009 1:34:37 PM , Rating: 3
I don't play it. I don't plan on buying it. I play Team Fortress 2 frequently so I have no need to put up with a sub-par experience. :)

I will though do my darndest to get the word out to everyone I know. Us PC gamers have been putting up with far too much crap as of late and it has to stop.

RE: In a word...
By Regs on 11/13/2009 3:40:38 PM , Rating: 3
I really don't see it as spilled milk. Modern Warfare built a culture around dedicated servers that were essentially homes away from home. These homes also included friends you could occasionally hang with. If you did not belong in that culture then you will likely never understand.

The whiney people in my mind are the ones that thought everybody who was better than them was a hacker or the idiots who could not find a proper server to play on.

RE: In a word...
By Yawgm0th on 11/13/2009 1:41:20 PM , Rating: 3
How does "your friend" know that he has 0 ping as the host? The game doesn't display ping counts.
By definition, the "host" in a P2P game -- the non-dedicated server, if you will -- has zero ping. It doesn't matter what the game does or doesn't display display.

The inability to use dedicated servers in a modern shooter is not acceptable. MW2's PC value is between $20 and $40. It is a single-player game, effectively.

RE: In a word...
By Omega215D on 11/17/2009 1:23:24 PM , Rating: 1
Not really, don't knock if you didn't try it. I thought it wasn't going to be that great of a MP experience when I heard but I'm just as addicted to it as I was in MW1. Look, people can rate down all they want because geeks are becoming like lemmings and once they hear something "bad" about a game it's dismissed a la Win Vista and 7. There are some hang ups about disconnecting but it's around the same amount I got from MW1 when joining a server.

RE: In a word...
By Yawgm0th on 11/13/2009 1:35:42 PM , Rating: 4
BF2 also has epic air combat.

BF2's netcode is a good ten times better by my hyperbole, and BF2 was plagued by netcode issues for a long time.

BF2 this, BF that.

When the four-and-half-year-old game is better, something is wrong.

MW2 multiplayer for PC gamers is a fail.

RE: In a word...
By luhar49 on 11/15/2009 11:12:51 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. For this genre, BF2 is still about the best game.
Especially with the free release of all those plugin maps recently.
Huge multiplayer battles are the way to go. Nothing beats the thrill of working in big teams.

16 players is just not fun enough. Only reason for such low player count is that the games are developed for consoles. A PC server could easily host 100 players on one big map. Fight in air, land or water.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

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