Modern Warfare 2 Only Getting Two DLC Packs For Now

[DrunkWithPower]

1. I don't see why Treyarch doesn't just release a sole nazi zombie map pack. I would actually buy one then.

2. I hope IW releases the DLC with good timing, not the old "well you just bought the game? Download the new maps now!"

 

[Korey Von Doom]

I don't see why they can't put them in the game to begin with.

1. They would rather get the game released on time with a satisfactory amount of content.
2. Console owners have demonstrated during this generation they are gladly willing to shell out for this content, so publishers are capitalizing.

I'm not gladly willing, I'm having to, its gotten so you basically can't play WaW because every other map is DLC so you get kicked without them.

 

[quack35]

I don't see why they can't put them in the game to begin with.

I don't think they've actually made the maps yet.

They're just announcing that they'll have them eventually.

 

[pha kin su pah]

announcing DLC after the game is reasonable to me...

but annoucning DLC maps packs, before the game is even released? just put them in the game plz >_>.

 

[toapat]

yay, more news on a game that honestly is just a way to milk anyone with fewer then 5 braincells dedicated to common sence telling them that you are just wasting money on something with no value to the rest of the world, go and buy something that you can sell in 2-4 years time that will give out a far larger return then just stupid mindless and easily broken gameplay, such as 8 Magic the Gathering boosterpacks, one of which will contain a card some collector will want.

 

[Octorok]

Well this is a step up from the first Modern Warfare, though I'll just stick with the on-disc maps since I'm not into the multi-player like some friends of mine...

Is that, sir, a dig at individuals such as myself? Hmm?

By the way ; It's their game. They can release map packs for it and charge for them if they want to. I'll still drool over them and buy them... maybe. I still hope that, despite the fact that I think IW said there would be no zombies, there'll be some kind of... Insurgent Zombie Mode.

 

[Hobo Joe]

As long as they give us plenty of good maps with the game like they did with CoD4 I wouldn't mind, whereas with World at War all the maps were terrible, but as well as this even after 3 map packs WaW only now has 3 more maps than CoD4 did with stock + map pack.
So, basically, as long as they give a lot of maps with the game and they're high quality I'll be happy - so long as the new DLC is high quality too.

 

[cyber_andyy]

They should be in the game from the start....That said, I'll get it free because im on PC ^-^ *smug*

 

[Octorok]

yay, more news on a game that honestly is just a way to milk anyone with fewer then 5 braincells dedicated to common sence

I'm sorry, but who are you to say that this game is just a game to milk idiots? I consider myself, my friends and family to all be above a certain level of intelligence, and all of them intend to play and enjoy MW2. That is just a random, baseless statement born of ignorance, single-mindedness and downright generalization. Not your thing? Sure. I understand why some people dislike shooters. But an FPS that has yet to be released? Bit early to start forming hateful opinions, no?

 

[toapat]

yay, more news on a game that honestly is just a way to milk anyone with fewer then 5 braincells dedicated to common sence

I'm sorry, but who are you to say that this game is just a game to milk idiots? I consider myself, my friends and family to all be above a certain level of intelligence, and all of them intend to play and enjoy MW2. That is just a random, baseless statement born of ignorance, single-mindedness and downright generalization. Not your thing? Sure. I understand why some people dislike shooters. But an FPS that has yet to be released? Bit early to start forming hateful opinions, no?

the fact is you are just buying some overpriced game with minor graphics upgrades from a game released 10 years ago that you can still buy. that is what is so retarded about the videogames market: People who think that just because the game got some minor graphical tweeks it is worth buying. Sequels of all kinds only qualify as being worth buying when they feature major improvements over their predecessors/ the predecessor needs to be replaced (SC2 for the second). MW2 isnt doing anything new (except possibly adding cover) to actually qualify to be released.

 

[Octorok]

yay, more news on a game that honestly is just a way to milk anyone with fewer then 5 braincells dedicated to common sence

I'm sorry, but who are you to say that this game is just a game to milk idiots? I consider myself, my friends and family to all be above a certain level of intelligence, and all of them intend to play and enjoy MW2. That is just a random, baseless statement born of ignorance, single-mindedness and downright generalization. Not your thing? Sure. I understand why some people dislike shooters. But an FPS that has yet to be released? Bit early to start forming hateful opinions, no?

the fact is you are just buying some overpriced game with minor graphics upgrades from a game released 10 years ago that you can still buy. that is what is so retarded about the videogames market: People who think that just because the game got some minor graphical tweeks it is worth buying. Sequels of all kinds only qualify as being worth buying when they feature major improvements over their predecessors/ the predecessor needs to be replaced (SC2 for the second). MW2 isnt doing anything new (except possibly adding cover) to actually qualify to be released.

What? I'm literally flabbergasted. Minor graphics updates? Have you actually seen CoD screenshots compared to MW2 screenshots? Have you played them both? Have you inspected both of their graphical requirements? I find it highly unlikely, because you are talking out of your arse.

You obviously dislike the game, or perhaps the game makers. That is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to claim that an entirely new sequel set in different countries with a new story, new characters, new guns, new modes for single player, new maps for multiplayer, new modes and entire overhaul of multiplayer and graphical updates has no right to be released as a sequel and does nothing more than "minor graphics updates". If all they were doing was Call Of Duty 4 with better graphics, nobody would buy it. What people pay for in this, which costs just as much as any other major release title, chucking "overpriced" out the window, is a new game. Sure, a new game that only slightly tweaks its template, but very few games really do that. How many sequels were entirely original, built in different engines and with an entire overhaul of controls and gameplay? Very, very few if not none. Because a sequel is just that ; following on from a previous game. Whatever it changes you cannot blame it for sticking to its predecessors template when it works and is popular.

Who are you to judge what others wish to play? And why do you insist on claiming that Call Of Duty : Modern Warfare 2 is just Call Of Duty with better graphics? The game's come a long way since then, in terms of style, graphics, gameplay, multiplayer and about six decades of time.

 

[toapat]

If all they were doing was Call Of Duty 4 with better graphics, nobody would buy it.

you aparently didnt notice, but what qualifies for a new game in the call of duty series is minor tweeks to the guns and graphical upgrades. the "new" "modifications to multiplayer" are simply a slightly different system for setting up and finding games, its not Battle.net, which the new version is so important it dictates the final release date of Starcraft 2.CoD6:MW2 is just CoD4:MW with minor upgrades to the system. nothing that qualifies a new game, just a patch. you can patch an improved system, graphics, and a few "new" guns.

this isnt Max Payne, so story is going to fall to the wayside and just end up being for a massive tutorial for retards which most FPSes have had their storymode become. find me one charicter you will remember occasionally from any call of duty game. this isnt Starcraft: Ghost, or Gears of War. this is a generic FPS that companies shit out bi-monthly

 

[Octorok]

If all they were doing was Call Of Duty 4 with better graphics, nobody would buy it.

you aparently didnt notice, but what qualifies for a new game in the call of duty series is minor tweeks to the guns and graphical upgrades. the "new" "modifications to multiplayer" are simply a slightly different system for setting up and finding games, its not Battle.net, which the new version is so important it dictates the final release date of Starcraft 2.CoD6:MW2 is just CoD4:MW with minor upgrades to the system. nothing that qualifies a new game, just a patch. you can patch an improved system, graphics, and a few "new" guns.

this isnt Max Payne, so story is going to fall to the wayside and just end up being for a massive tutorial for retards which most FPSes have had their storymode become. find me one charicter you will remember occasionally from any call of duty game. this isnt Starcraft: Ghost, or Gears of War. this is a generic FPS that companies shit out bi-monthly

Jesus Christ, I haven't mention it until now, but proper grammar really makes your posts easier to read, and generally nicer to look at. However, I despise your use of quotes in a sarcastic manner, as it presents the fact that all you can do to argue is be pretentious and downright... nuts? Apparently you know every multiplayer mode already and can describe them. You also know about previously unmentioned new systems. Have you actually played more than one of the Call of Duty games? I don't believe that you have, as you are talking out of your arse in reference to just updating graphics and battle system. CoD4 introduced killstreaks. CoD6 introduces customized killstreaks, with 15 different options , alongside it's new maps and multiplayer modes. Every game has added to the multiplayer, even lazy Treyarch made new modes for WaW, and Infinity Ward like change more than they do. As for you saying "new" guns, I don't know what you're getting at. No, really. "New", just suggests that they are the same guns. If you think that you be the case, you are an imbecile. To look at CoD4 and then at WaW and claim that they just had the same guns would be absurd, incorrect and incredibly stupid. Close-mindedness goes out of the window into downright idiocy.

And claiming that MW2 could have been a patch. Really? I mean come on. New graphics? Sure. New guns? Not a patch. DLC perhaps, but not a patch. But new multiplayer modes, a game worth of guns, and an entire singleplayer and overhaul is not a patch ; it's a sequel. Literally.

And people who played CoD4 will tell you that the story was damn important. Not just an overhanging idea, or even a template like WW2, it was an interesting and intense tale, that brought you around the world and told a very good story. As for characters ; Reznov, from WaW, for being generic and saying "You only grazed him!". Captain Price for being generally a fun character, his demise and beautiful facial hair. Gaz for the ending. Several others.

Call Of Duty has never been about just characters. They're just garnishes to help drive the story, which was rich and full, which in turn drives the game as a whole. And then claiming that this is a shit, generic FPS while Gears of War was original is just stupid. Besides, GoW was third person.

You have a dislike to Call Of Duty. Fine. You consider it generic. Fine, that's still only an opinion. But the kind of gibbering ravings that you seem to present as evidence are weak, cannot be backed up with any shred of evidence, and are unfair to a long-running game series that is finally starting to look better, with WW2 being done and MW2 coming up for release.

 

[Sevre]

They are working on DLC before the game has been released? Bit arrogant yeah?

 

[toapat]

Jesus Christ, I haven't mention it until now, but proper grammar really makes your posts easier to read, and generally nicer to look at. However, I despise your use of quotes in a sarcastic manner, as it presents the fact that all you can do to argue is be pretentious and downright... nuts? Apparently you know every multiplayer mode already and can describe them. You also know about previously unmentioned new systems. Have you actually played more than one of the Call of Duty games? I don't believe that you have, as you are talking out of your arse in reference to just updating graphics and battle system. CoD4 introduced killstreaks. CoD6 introduces customized killstreaks, with 15 different options , alongside it's new maps and multiplayer modes. Every game has added to the multiplayer, even lazy Treyarch made new modes for WaW, and Infinity Ward like change more than they do. As for you saying "new" guns, I don't know what you're getting at. No, really. "New", just suggests that they are the same guns. If you think that you be the case, you are an imbecile. To look at CoD4 and then at WaW and claim that they just had the same guns would be absurd, incorrect and incredibly stupid. Close-mindedness goes out of the window into downright idiocy.

And claiming that MW2 could have been a patch. Really? I mean come on. New graphics? Sure. New guns? Not a patch. DLC perhaps, but not a patch. But new multiplayer modes, a game worth of guns, and an entire singleplayer and overhaul is not a patch ; it's a sequel. Literally.

And people who played CoD4 will tell you that the story was damn important. Not just an overhanging idea, or even a template like WW2, it was an interesting and intense tale, that brought you around the world and told a very good story. As for characters ; Reznov, from WaW, for being generic and saying "You only grazed him!". Captain Price for being generally a fun character, his demise and beautiful facial hair. Gaz for the ending. Several others.

Call Of Duty has never been about just characters. They're just garnishes to help drive the story, which was rich and full, which in turn drives the game as a whole. And then claiming that this is a shit, generic FPS while Gears of War was original is just stupid. Besides, GoW was third person.

You have a dislike to Call Of Duty. Fine. You consider it generic. Fine, that's still only an opinion. But the kind of gibbering ravings that you seem to present as evidence are weak, cannot be backed up with any shred of evidence, and are unfair to a long-running game series that is finally starting to look better, with WW2 being done and MW2 coming up for release.

Call of Duty 5 had one memorable moment in the entire game. where the american sergent gets shot by a Japanese soldier plowing through the door.
have you ever seen exactly how big patches can get? entire conversion mods (done by only a few people and they can become far larger then the game it is based on) for games can be made and put on the internet, and are basically just patches. "New" multiplayer modes just means the multiplayer is just taking more queues from the original Unreal Tournament, one of the pinnacles of the FPS which also happens to have every single multiplayer gametype so far added excluding titan mode of UT3, and the Double Domination and Bombingrun games of UT2.

DLC you have to pay for? thats absolute bullshit. Patches for a game should be free, not expensive BS that barely adds a few hours of gameplay

 

[Octorok]

Call of Duty 5 had one memorable moment in the entire game. where the american sergent gets shot by a Japanese soldier plowing through the door.
have you ever seen exactly how big patches can get? entire conversion mods (done by only a few people and they can become far larger then the game it is based on) for games can be made and put on the internet, and are basically just patches. "New" multiplayer modes just means the multiplayer is just taking more queues from the original Unreal Tournament, one of the pinnacles of the FPS which also happens to have every single multiplayer gametype so far added excluding titan mode of UT3, and the Double Domination and Bombingrun games of UT2.

DLC you have to pay for? thats absolute bullshit. Patches for a game should be free, not expensive BS that barely adds a few hours of gameplay

You're confusing the word "patch" with the word "DLC", or possibly "mods" if on PC. A patch is a fix, it suggests that there was some technical problem beforehand. If there no problem then adding content is not a patch, it is DLC. Downloadable Content. Whether free or not, that's what it is. And devs who make DLCs for games have every right to charge for them. They're creating new experiences for games, and can charge what they like, within reason.

And you're doing it again. Using quotation marks around the word "new" as if IW were just craftily giving us the same multiplayer modes but pretending otherwise. Apart from the fact that you kind of prove yourself wrong, by saying that they're stolen from UT and then saying that it has every multiplayer mode. How can new modes be created if UT3 has every one available? And so what if they're just rebranding modes from UT? I mean, the modes they take are generally quite common, apart from a few original ideas or modes that the developers made their own, and using them in a slightly different version under the banner of CoD is fine. Just a new to play. I honestly don't care, as long as the modes are good.

And I'm a little confused now. Are you meaning that MW2 is just a patch and should be free to download? Seriously? That's ridiculous. Two fucking years of work is not a patch. And it's not DLC. It's a game. A new game, with new content. New plot, and new characters. I call that a new game. And saying that MW2 barely adds a few hours of gameplay is preposterous. Apart from the fact you haven't played it, the whole campaign is set to be longer than CoD4's, which was roughly 10 hours maybe. And then the multiplayer... Well, I've put eight days of my life into that. And another day in CoD WaW. Anything that causes you to play for that long is worth paying for, and the magnitude of changes goes beyond paying DLC. Hence why it's not DLC. That's why Modern Warfare 2 deserves to be released as a complete sequel, and is worth paying for, my last few posts and this have all led up to that.

I'm starting to think that you're just spouting bullshit for no reason, beyond just strong opinions, and intend to not respond to any response you may have to this, because this isn't a discussion. You're just wrong. And I'd bet that come November 10, millions more will back me up.

 

[Maccy Man]

2 MAP packs are better than 1, and if they release 6 or 8 maps all told that is a good handful.

 

[scotth266]

The game isnt even out yet right? it costs a bloody fortune, and THEY WONT EVEN PUT THE BLOODY EXTRAS THEY'VE ANNOUNCED BEFORE HAND IN THE GAME!? fucking cocky basterds.

Oh yes, it's completely wrong of them to be planning out content to release after the game to maintain interest in said game.... which is the entire point of DLC.

HOW DARE THEY!1!1!

 

[Pandalisk]

The game isnt even out yet right? it costs a bloody fortune, and THEY WONT EVEN PUT THE BLOODY EXTRAS THEY'VE ANNOUNCED BEFORE HAND IN THE GAME!? fucking cocky basterds.

Oh yes, it's completely wrong of them to be planning out content to release after the game to maintain interest in said game.... which is the entire point of DLC.

HOW DARE THEY!1!1!

For the price i expect them to include it if its already produced, it can keep me interested when i get the game, from the point i get the game, considering that the main campaign is 6-10 hours im not asking for much.

And i remember The resi 5 DLC being already on the disc that had to be unlocked by paying money at a future date, people were in uproar.

Its Not the planning of content to release after the game, i love DLC's, but if its basically already produced they could just throw it in all things considering.

 

[ssgt splatter]

Ok, it's official: I need a credit card. I hate not being able to buy DLC.

But laying out their plan before the game is even released? They like sorting things out early.

EDIT: the guy above me makes a very good point.

True but IW knows they have us by the neck already so yeah they are fucking cocky bastards.