I…what the…HUH??

Absolutely baffling!

  • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    1 year ago

    "I’ll explain: Before you can launch Modern Warfare 3, you have to launch Modern Warfare 2 first. Seriously. “Call of Duty HQ” is just the Modern Warfare 2/Warzone client under a new name.

    Switching between Modern Warfares 2 and 3 from the HQ is not like switching modes. Once you’re on the main menu, you could jump immediately into Warzone or a multiplayer match of MW2. Clicking the Modern Warfare 3 button, however, closes the HQ app and launches an entirely different executable called Modern Warfare 3. There is no option to just launch Modern Warfare 3, because “Modern Warfare 3” is not its own game. It’s buried, literally, inside CoD HQ as a piece of add-on content.

    The result? It takes 70-90 seconds to launch Modern Warfare 3—at least, those are the times I’m getting. That’s an eternity for CoD, but what’s baffling is that these extra steps serve no discernable purpose for players. Perhaps Activision pitched the CoD HQ with consoles in mind, where games aren’t so easily organized by series and an app that switches between the handful of still-active CoDs is useful."

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then you can’t run MW3. If not for the date, I’d honestly have suspected that Activision were doing a huge April fool’s prank!

        • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          I doubt that. I bet they package the client with 3 but you don’t get any actual mw2 content.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Other way around, according to the article: the launcher considers it a mod for MWF 2 and as such it can only be launched by first entering the lobby of MWF2. It has no independently launchable executable file.

            • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This is very wrong. They’ve been doing this with Warzone (which is free-to-play) for a while. If you try to launch MW2 from the launcher when you don’t own it it just takes you to a page to buy it. There’s no way they would lock you out of a game you own just because you don’t own another game in the launcher. Not defending the practice though still completely ridiculous you have to launch the MW2 launcher first.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh. Guess first reading the article at 4am my time DID impair reading comprehension somewhat! My bad 😄

                Still a bizarre way to to it, though

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I honestly don’t know. The contents of the short article linked in the OP is literally all I know about the third of the modern warfares 😄

      • bighatchester@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can actually download it without buying . I wanted to play warzone on ps5 . Took forever to find the download for it but it basically makes you download all of modern warfare 2 just to play the free to play parts .

  • Rooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    At this point being into the MW series is basically having a humilliation fetish with a side order of findoming.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sadly, that’s the case with most AAA games now. The shit EA and Ubisoft, to name two other examples, get away with because of owning a few extremely successful franchises with huge loyal followings is RIDICULOUS!

  • QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Wait, WHAT!?! Really tells me they could just add content to the same game for 2 or 3 years as DLC and stop with the annual releases. Now THAT, I’d like.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I watched a play-through on YouTube instead. I haven’t bought a Call of Duty game in a decade, but this one has to definitely be the worst one yet.

  • redline23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    At some point multiple people looked at this and said:

    “Yes. This is exactly how it should work”

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Has anyone checked to see if Elon Musk secretly bought ActivisionBlizzard while we were all distracted with trying to stop Microsoft from doing so?

      Because it TOTALLY sounds like how he’d make it work.

  • AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s okay to blacklist an entire publisher.

    I haven’t bought any games from EA at all since 2013 and know I missed nothing because it’s all just reruns of the same game formula.

      • AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It takes two looked great, but there are just so many games out there I still feel ok having missed it.

        Mirrors edge was 2008.

        • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean CS:GO was 2012, and it only “died” a few months ago. Hell, Mario 64 was 1996, and it still has a huge following. Genuinely good games remain timeless

          Edit: forgot about the part where you mentioned “since 2013,” so ignore my point

          • AndyLikesCandy@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            CS:GO is a valve title not EA. I was specifically referring to EA.That aside…

            CS:GO was only a repackaging of CS expansion which itself was a repackaging of CS half-life mod from 1998.

            Sure 14 years later the graphics engine was a little updated and there were new maps, but I played a lot of the original and after installing CS:GO I was supremely underwhelmed by the lack of change.

      • threeduck@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It Takes Two too often borrowed from that “well that just happened!” school of comedy that I just couldn’t stand. Not all the time mind you, but enough to bother me.

  • paraphrand@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I bet it’s so they don’t have to duplicate the login system for their account system or something silly like that.

    “We don’t want to maintain X in two places.”

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think that’s called an expansion pack.

    Why can’t they just call things what they are?

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Probably because expansion packs typically cost less than a full game. They want to make it easier for themselves to get away with overcharging.

  • midniter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    On Steam there is a different entry for MW3, that is waiting to be unlocked for installing on November 10th. It doesn’t make too much sense that this different Steam Store game (with a different game id) will also open MW2’s CoD HQ. I’ll wait and see, maybe there will also be a way to open MW3 directly.

      • midniter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So with the last Steam update, the previous Call of Duty entry in Steam now launches into MW3 directly. To enter Warzone or MW2 multiplayer you will have to wait for it to start the MW2 process. It’s exactly how they did it with the MW3 beta and campaign, just viceversa, so to play MW3 MP and Warzone (starting in December) you won’t have to wait for game switching.

  • Stuka@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This author took the valid position of hating whatever the fuck this setup is supposed to be, and made the whole complaint look silly by how thick the BS was laid on.