I'm actually very very curious as to how they felt that they could get away with all this.

Did they really think MW2 would be like the FPS of the decade? That at the end of the day, we're all useless sods with no self-control and we'd end up buying the thing regardless of all this shafting?

Like perhaps they had some graph with list of features matched up against potential RAGE from PC community if removed and then they slowly chipped away at it before it hit some baseline whereby the "potential" sales projections would be too low (Or rate of piracy becomes too high because they believe we'll just pirate it if we won't buy it)

Saying this is bizarre would be an understatement and I'm really really anxious to see how this all plays out.

But the thing is, whenever a big company wants to screw over their playerbase, they'll do it discreetly (By basically not saying anything. Case in point: Operation Flashpoint 2's lack of dedicated servers).

This is almost as though they WANT to incur our wrath. Its either they've completely lost touch with the very idea of a PC (One of their interviews actually listed out "Mouse control" as a PC feature) or they're that arrogant that their game is soooooo good ON TOP OF ALL THIS.

You can assume that the game will be crap because its lacking all these fundamentals, but what if it were REALLY that good in spite of all that?

Then what?

:shudders:

That's the thing, I believe that they truly believe that they can get away with this based on past behaviour.

After watching the initial uproar and subsequent quell of the L4D2 boycott, they probably figured that PC gamers are all filled with hot air and if they do not relent with their proposed changes, the community will come around.

Clavicus: Its either ingenious marketing or really horrible case of letting your marketing dictate your game.

I think IW are taking the term "The minority shout the loudest" to be fact instead of an approximation based on their constant assurances that they're doing this for the good of the players.

I don't think so... If that were the case, they wouldn't even have bothered with IWNet and would've just stuck with GfWL.

Thing is, if it was going to be more console, they would've just done a straight port with no need to do development for IWNet. Hell, they wouldn't even need to say anything about it now until the game came out. When CoD 3 was dropped from the PC, they didn't even bother to justify why that was the case. Also, they don't even seem to be doing any form of "damage control" with their press statements.

And I've never known IW to be so aggressive with their marketing, so I'm really really REALLY wondering what the hell is going on here.

Precisely! Nobody knows what is their motives for doing all this as I dare say this is quite unprecedented in the history of PC gaming.

That's why instead of continuing to rage over the issue, I'll just wait and see what happens.

Rage is going to have multiplayer?

Didn't the last game they did (Doom 3) only have like 4-8 player DM? Of course they wouldn't bother with it this time.

Modern Warfare 2 was always touted to be the biggest game of the year (Causing the delay of no less than a dozen titles into next year as well) and it didn't even need publicity to ensure sales.

The issue isn't that they've stripped away things. Its that they have taken these things away, put "pretenders" which are supposed to be better instead and act as though they're doing it for our good.

And in what world would it make sense to piss of your fanbase first, THEN do away with it to please them later?

HAHA I was right!

They do consider the "vocal minority" to be ABSOLUTELY inconsequential and thus aren't bothered at all about justifying what they're doing properly.

Hence, I do believe that they've completely lost touch with the PC community as it is.


...

Or maybe its a smokescreen to mask their actions... Who knows.

Cheese and the rest of you, could you guys limit your MW2 crusade to that other thread that was just made? The entire point of that thread was to put all this anti-MW2 stuff in there so that it won't interrupt the discussion here.

This thread is for MW2 players to discuss about the game that they have. The bashing is in the other one.

Who jas?

He's still talking about the game. Doesn't matter if its on another platform. We're not platform bigots here.

It also doesn't matter if he's just trolling, doesn't mean you can too.

Note: Jas2davir, you're on a very tight leash here. Please stop antagonizing them.

Cheese, you're not the gatekeeper of this thread. This thread is about the PC version of the game, emphasis on game. He has every right to post here about it as you do in the console thread.

Jas, stop baiting him. Yes, you have every right to be here, but don't antagonize the ppl here please.

Now, both of you play nice before I send you both on holiday.

I have a friend a who bought it and based on his impressions last night he said the lag is pretty inconsistent (Between servers). Sometimes its high, sometimes its not very high.

Regardless, he seemed to enjoy himself (This is a guy who's far more hardcore than I with CoD.. I think he got the gold sniper rifle in CoD4) despite the lag.

Then again, this was also the guy who went into quite laggy Aussie servers just so he could own them on top of the lag.

But, if I had known he was getting it, I *might* have gotten it myself since my game purchases are sometimes partially driven by peer pressure (Ok, pressure isn't the right word... Its more the "so we can play together" syndrome)

This post has been edited by H@H@: Nov 11 2009, 09:18 AM

Guys, please stop with the warez stuff, k?

Are you sure that's how it works? Seems awfully susceptible to hacks if that were the case (Since the server prioritizes the client info rather than what is actually happening on its side)

Also, you have to remember, the server isn't just receiving info from you, its from everyone else. So, that explanation of how it handles information is a little one sided as it not only has to look at bullets being fired, but also at the person being hit.

PS. That whole "move out of cover, move back , die" scenario happened quite a bit with Counter Strike Source (Which till today leads ppl to believe that its hitboxes are buggered) since it used a prediction model that favored the client over the server (Your actions would always look smooth regardless of whether it was affected by lag, which made it feel smooth in laggy conditions but made it a bit hard to discern whether you're hitting stuff).

Hmmm, ok let me try to illustrate a scenario to show you my doubts about this (I'll be using very general approximations, so please don't butcher me on the timestamps):
Player A has a ping of 10ms
Player B has a ping of 100ms
Both are connected to server X

Timeline:
Time 0:
A is at location x1,y1
B is looking at x1,y1 (Effectively A)
X takes snapshot of A @ x1,y1 and also B looking at x1,1
Since A has a lower ping, his data reaches X far earlier before B.

Time 1:
A moves to location x2,y2
B fires at position x1,y1 (A)
X is waiting on response from both clients

Time 2:
A's information reaches X first and it updates A's position to location x1,y1
B's fire command at x1,y1 is still enroute to X

Time 3:
A is at location x1,y1
B's fire command reaches X and updates that B is firing on x1,y1


Ok, here are the issues with this:
1) If it is very client side oriented as you say, which "snapshot" should it take? A or B? There's no way that it can prioritize client snapshots because something like this would happen. If it takes A's, then that's roughly how lag prediction works now where it favours the lower ping clients. If it takes Bs, then A is obviously at a disadvantage since though he has little lag, his actions can be overridden due to another's time delay.
2) How does the server synchronize the time? With this, it seems that the server's own timestamps are very reliant on the slowest client in the game, which makes it doubly unfair to everyone else.


This is just my very rough understanding of how latency is handled in most games (And I'm not saying you're wrong), I'm just curious about the whole thing as it seems very different from what I used to know.

Ah yes, my bad... but you get my point right?

Just so I'm clear, exactly when you pulled the trigger was there a firing sound or only when you were awarded the kill?

Yeah that's my fear as well. Its incredibly broken and really makes hacking easier on the PC.

Are you sure its the same? I played on Aussie servers with MW and I remember having to do a lot of leading with my shots to get them to hit.

This post has been edited by H@H@: Nov 12 2009, 03:46 PM