Post by Dan @ 08:44am 02/06/11 | 48 Comments
The article contains detailed specifics about many of the game's proposed killstreaks and perks, but oddly the most significant factoid they have to offer is dropped as a closing footnote:
We've also learned, unfortunately, that this latest Call of Duty still won't support dedicated servers, instead relying on the [player] hosted servers found in previous iterations of the game. Dedicated servers were removed from the Modern Warfare games starting with Modern Warfare 2. (Modern Warfare 3 appears to be using DemonWare for player authentication, just like with Call of Duty: Black Ops.)Dedicated servers are obviously a very big deal for PC gamers (and any consolers that know what's good for them) and while Modern Warfare 2 controversially shipped without support for them, they were reintroduced in Black Ops (albeit in a very hamstrung manner).
With Modern Warfare 3 going up against some of the stiffest competition yet with EA's (dedicated server confirmed) Battlefield 3 this November, it's a bold move by Activision to beleieve they can sail on without them.
This is of course very unofficial confirmation for now, but Kotaku's source did prove credible on their previous leaks. Following the article's publication, Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling has since contrarily confirmed that there will be no "stopping power" or "team perks" in the game, but has not mentioned anything about dedicated servers -- take that as you will.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is due on PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 on November 8th 2011.
Buy now from Green Man Gaming Only GBP£17.99!
Latest Comments
48 Comments
Show
Follow Us
Advertisement
Log In
Posted 08:54am 02/6/11
sucks that there will be plenty of people who will buy it regardless, though.
Posted 08:54am 02/6/11
Posted 09:16am 02/6/11
Game companies don't always make for the best hosts.
Posted 09:17am 02/6/11
BF3 it is. Even though I wasn't a huge fan of BF2 :/ Im sure its going to be way better then the typical "run and gun, get 2 lucky kills because you saw them first, then camp another 6 kills to get a helicopter that kills everyone" style of play.
Posted 09:18am 02/6/11
Posted 09:28am 02/6/11
Posted 09:45am 02/6/11
Posted 10:00am 02/6/11
At least with WoW you know there is a f***load of hardware/technology behind running the game, MW3 will have what?
A forum that will be s*** because any negative comments about the game will be deleted, and stats tracking that no one cares about.
Yes I know there will be a MP that you dont have to pay for, but they will structure it so the free version is basically useless after the first month or so, with everyone moving to the exclusive maps/content that come with the subscription.
Posted 10:07am 02/6/11
Posted 10:08am 02/6/11
Posted 10:10am 02/6/11
i like how everyone was like 'f*** that, lets boycott it!' and then they all bought it and whinge when the next installation has no dedicated servers either
serves the idiots right
Posted 11:09am 02/6/11
Posted 11:31am 02/6/11
Also, people seem to be getting MW3 and CoD Elite mixed up itt.
Posted 11:49am 02/6/11
Posted 12:08pm 02/6/11
Posted 12:22pm 02/6/11
EA have made s***** choices in the past too, so many people watch a BF3 trailer and seem to forget that.
Posted 01:13pm 02/6/11
Posted 01:22pm 02/6/11
http://store.steampowered.com/news/5596/
Posted 01:40pm 02/6/11
Also, just looking at the 12 minute singleplayer gameplay video for Battlefield 3 makes me know multiplayer is going to be damn awesome. Expect BF3 multiplayer details being shown at E3, and going to blow MW3 out of the water.
Posted 01:41pm 02/6/11
Posted 01:50pm 02/6/11
Posted 01:54pm 02/6/11
Posted 01:57pm 02/6/11
Posted 02:15pm 02/6/11
Posted 02:47pm 02/6/11
Posted 03:27pm 02/6/11
I enjoyed MW2 but having a multiplayer game pause so it transfers to a new host is, & always will be, stupid.
Posted 03:38pm 02/6/11
Posted 04:13pm 02/6/11
Posted 04:37pm 02/6/11
It's the exact opposite of the strategy employed by companies like Blizzard and Valve, who build games for the long haul, going after the "long tail" of sales and relying on word of mouth to just keep sales going over time.
The really frustrating thing is that it would be so easy for them to turn the next Call of Duty game into the defacto standard for FPS competitive gaming by following Blizzard's lead - build your game for multiplayer first, focus on competitive features and making it something suitable for pro-gaming - the rest will almost just follow naturally. The original FPS games that fostered so much awesome competition did that almost accidentally simply by their very nature.
People who take games seriously for competitive purposes don't really want to get into a franchise that is going to be renewed every 12 months; the time investment to get good at something only to have it replaced shortly later just seems to great, especially because so many of the skills are game specific.
The dedicated server thing clearly isn't even a requirement - see SC2 - but for FPS games especially and for new titles, it means that they can be scaled quickly and they can be run anywhere by anyone, which I think is a truly critical part of any growing a real competitive scene.
Posted 04:40pm 02/6/11
Posted 06:03pm 02/6/11
Also, have the single player type COD with their current formula that they can pump out year after year as a cash cow (with its own multi player). Every now and then if a multilayer part of it is really enhanced add it too the pro version.
Posted 07:31pm 02/6/11
Cool thanks.
Posted 08:22pm 02/6/11
Posted 08:55pm 02/6/11
I swore black & blue I'd never buy it, played the "free" version, liked it so much so ended up buying it anyway. I still play mw2 to this day, I make a pretty decent host now so at least I always have a good game even if everyone else has a s***** connection to me :p
I probably won't get this immediately, nor will I get bf3 right away. I'll wait until I see others playing and see whether or not there's any major issues. I don't want another bad company 2 where I buy it then end up not being able to play because of lame server browsers & ea login failure.
I'm pretty sure if there's any hard core gamers who really want to play something purely for comps they'll go play quake, or there's still some cod4 dedicated servers around.
Posted 09:01pm 02/6/11
Posted 05:11am 03/6/11
Posted 05:32am 03/6/11
Posted 06:49am 03/6/11
See that's the thing. So many people play FPS's, and so many people are pretty damn good at them, that it's kind of mind boggling that those features and that kind of atmosphere can't/ is not being achieved currently.
I held out hope that Brink would take us back to that, but it's already gone stale a few weeks into release.
Posted 08:17am 03/6/11
i can't even...
Posted 08:29am 03/6/11
From the MW2 youtube videos I've seen BC2 looks like it has a way better 'feel' to it anyway. The player model movement looked lightweight in MW2, but thats from vids...
Can't friggin wait for BC3!!!!
Posted 11:43am 03/6/11
Ok whose troll account is this?
Posted 11:45am 03/6/11
Posted 01:17pm 03/6/11
Posted 01:31pm 03/6/11
Posted 01:43pm 03/6/11
Was reading a few weeks back a couple of towns voted with an overwhelming majority to build their own networks to get away from the whole one provider thing. The providers are taking them to court and trying to get state goverments to stop the towns being allowed to have a choice. America f*** yeah?
Posted 02:18pm 03/6/11
Posted 05:39pm 03/6/11
Posted 09:03pm 03/6/11
I've played mw2 and bad company 2, let me just say the lack of lean in mw2 s**** me, the lack of lean AND prone in bad company 2 is just really f*****g stupid.
Online play for the most part isn't choppy, not many people teleport but at times there is some severe lag if you end up with an american host. If you play at a time when most of Australia is awake though, I don't notice that much of a difference between mw2 & bad company 2.
As for how the game looks & feels, I guess it's personal preference? I've got no problems with either game, they both handle differently but neither is better or worse, they're just different.