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 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.

"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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