If You Buy Modern Warfare 3 Early, Microsoft Warns Against Playing Online [UPDATED]

@Mystyr_E said:

well at least they're not putting in a horrible web-based browser and forcing you to download a game from their service when you CLEARLY own the retail disc, right? I mean, who would do that?

What does Valve have to do with Call of Duty?

@Mystyr_E: Battlelog is brilliant, removing the overhead of running the game until your actually in the match is a great move and one we will see copied by other developers going forward. The Origin stuff though, well yeah that was baaaad.

Well this story ended up being a wild train ride through Wacky Town. First it was a bogus first step, then it wasn't, then it was again and now everything seems groovy.

@heav3nzwarrior: I was going to buy this until I saw Dane Cook was playing it.

@Kanji said:

Only sad part is people still throwing away 60 bucks on this piece of shit. Oh I'm sorry, that's right, this is totally different from the past 3 games. Not.

If you know where to look you can get it much cheaper. But that's not really your point, so why even bother?

So I'm allowed to play the campaign while connected to XBox Live, or do I have to unplug to be on the so called "safe" side?

@Mystyr_E said:

well at least they're not putting in a horrible web-based browser and forcing you to download a game from their service when you CLEARLY own the retail disc, right? I mean, who would do that?

QUOTED.

LOL, people still buy this shitty games?

This happened with a lot of other games... Thanks for the heads up! (somewhere noobs are clapping)

I don't get it. If you buy the game on xbox you can start playing or what? And i read news that Activision will not ban the legitimate player but oh well...we will have to wait and see.

Legitly isn't a legitimate word.

@liquidsword said:

very vague and sinister warning. lol

Sorry, couldn't hear the sound of my own indifference over the sweet ass exploding vehicles in Battlefield 3.

very vague and sinister warning. lol

@Kanji said:

Only sad part is people still throwing away 60 bucks on this piece of shit. Oh I'm sorry, that's right, this is totally different from the past 3 games. Not.

You are a sad human being. Glad I am not you. Thanks for the laugh though.

I saw that Dane Cook had the game yesterday and on Twitter he was making claims that he was already ranking up. He showed the disc and everything.

@OneManX: "clarification: dblchk'd with Activision. Mw3 pre-release play not authorized,”

Activisons message at that time seemed very clear, so no, indignation about this very clear slap in the face to legit gamers wasn't an over-reaction at all. It was the rightful response to a company trying to throw its weight around, again!

@hrn212 said:

So as a relatively new PC gamer, I tend to buy all my games online. I'm just curious...how often do retailers end up selling copies of a game before the official release date, anyway?

All the time.

So as a relatively new PC gamer, I tend to buy all my games online. I'm just curious...how often do retailers end up selling copies of a game before the official release date, anyway?

The official word is probably something misconstrued by a PR representative that doesn't really know what's going on, I'll bet. Only when people on the internet started catching on that this was a potentially unfair business practice did it gain wind and then someone finally high enough on the chain to know what's going on chimed in.

On a side note, I wonder how many dumb Gamestop employees are going to end up losing their job over breaking street date over this game specifically. Call it a morbid statistical interest.

So basically 92% of the MW3 audience will never hear about this if they've bought a retail copy early. Sucks for them.

Half the people on my XBL friends' list were playing MW2 a week in advance of the actual release.

There was plenty of talk about stats getting reset at midnight of the official launch date. That never happened.

I go online on day one, and get immediately slaughtered by the higher ranking players with their powerful unlocked weapons (which has nothing to do with the fact that I stink at FPS's).

Replace MW2 with MW3, and the cycle starts all over again.

Such is life!

@Mystyr_E I own the retail disc and I didn't have to download anything through origin except and update. Like steam, origin is necessary to run the game. But aside from having it running you need no interaction with it. Also the browser launcher is actually pretty cool. It lets you browse and do whatever you want right up until you have to play. Honestly I don't see how it detracts from the experience in any way.

Only sad part is people still throwing away 60 bucks on this piece of shit. Oh I'm sorry, that's right, this is totally different from the past 3 games. Not.

will ban anyone.

They are being pretty lame about this whole situation. I would like to take a look at Gold's and MW3 terms & agreements - I bet something like this was not specifically accounted for and therefore neither Microsoft or Activision

They should just unlock it, let everyone have fun, including me :P

@PJ said:

@Mystyr_E said:

well at least they're not putting in a horrible web-based browser and forcing you to download a game from their service when you CLEARLY own the retail disc, right? I mean, who would do that?

The browser for BF3 is actually really good. The downside is that its not built in to Origin or the game. Those who say the browser launcher is terrible havn't actually used it for more then a minute.

This is true. Wasn't too happy about the browser getup until I tried it. But now I can browse the web while I wait for the game to load and it is pretty easy too use; no stupid flash bs that makes my PC angry :P

@sp1der1976 said:

@Quarters said:

Nice to see that all the people going ape on Activision for the playing early thing turned out to be absolutely nothing at all. I swear, gamers are the biggest bunch of over-reactors I've ever seen.

Did it ever occur to you that the only reason publishers, game dev's and PR people respond at all is due the 'over-reactionary' games playing public holding them to account? Make no mistake, all they care about is the $$$$ and if they could live in a world where everyone believed in their bullshit and could do shit like this, they would. Its our job to keep them honest.

..No it's just over-reaction. Why not just wait for what Activision says before jumping to conclusions..

Also EVERY company in the world wants your money, some are just more honest about it than others.

@Quarters said:

Nice to see that all the people going ape on Activision for the playing early thing turned out to be absolutely nothing at all. I swear, gamers are the biggest bunch of over-reactors I've ever seen.

Did it ever occur to you that the only reason publishers, game dev's and PR people respond at all is due the 'over-reactionary' games playing public holding them to account? Make no mistake, all they care about is the $$$$ and if they could live in a world where everyone believed in their bullshit and could do shit like this, they would. Its our job to keep them honest.

Nice to see that all the people going ape on Activision for the playing early thing turned out to be absolutely nothing at all. I swear, gamers are the biggest bunch of over-reactors I've ever seen.

VIDEOGAMES

i just dblchkdchk'd in my pants now i need to go shower THANKS A LOT ACTIVI$$$ION YOU ALL SUCK DICKS.

Great, looking forward to the quicklook to see how the fan banning functionality works

Activision sending mixed messages, hmm.

yeah i'd rather buy that game with the spyware program and that charges money twice and has an utter shit CS.

@Mystyr_E:

Steam(works)? Oh right, no browser, my bad!

@Addfwyn said:

@Humanity: Hard to say. There's a lot of people that could buy the game without knowing what the release date is even supposed to be. Let's say a local retailer breaks street date and puts it up early. Joe McWarfare happens to come in, and pick up the game early, totally oblivious of what the actual release date is. If he gets his account nuked or whatever, he absolutely had no idea what the release date was supposed to be. It seems to be asking a lot to expect a consumer to go out and research a product they just purchased to make sure it's okay for them to use.

Not everyone necessarily follows gaming news, just because those of us here at GB do. The punishment should be on the retailer who sold the product early. Assuming that we're talking legit copies that were just purchased before release date.

I can completely agree with that. I've neglected to think of the moms and dads and people who just heard of the game now and went out and got it. I mostly appreciate the rational point of view rather than the knee jerk reaction of raging about consumer rights.

Same thing happened for Halo 3 and MW2 as far as I remember. I think Microsoft is to blame here. They´re just trying a little too hard to find guys with pirated copys (which they can´t properly identify most of the time).

Yeah, they´re gonna refer to Activision, but it´s really their stupid "enforcement" team that can´t tell the modders from the regular people.

Edit: All the people still refering to the goddamn stupid EA fuelled forum wars between BF3 and MW3: get the fuck out of here. If anything your "battle" is already over on 360. Even MW2 had more players last week than BF3 had. Not that this fact should bother any sane human being, but I bet it bothers you guys.

Here's the thing: they want everyone to wait, just like a kid waits to unwrap the presents on Christmas. For those kids who get to open their gifts at the stroke of midnight, they want them to was to show the presents off to their friends, because they're still asleep.

@AndrewB said:

@bransonhuggins said:

Look, the problem is this. The people that sold the game entered into a contract with Activision to sale the game at a certain time, and not before. Hence a street date. They broke that contract by selling the game early, for whatever reason. Should you, the buying public be punished for this? Of course not. You didn't make the company break the street date, you merely prospered from it. They should not be punishing people for playing early, because they bought a game from a shady retailer.

Activision has the right, as a company, to be upset about this, but their issue should not be with the consumer, but with the retailer in this case. As this is not an issue that the consumer can stop. Now, should they be taking advantage of it, probably not. But then again, who amongst us isn't going to take the opportunity if they have it? Come on now.

That's pretty much what I have to say about all of this. A broken street date should mean the retailer gets punished, not the person who bought it. It's not up to the consumer to be keeping track of when a game is supposed to be officially released. If someone sees a hotly anticipated game they wanted on store shelves, they're going to buy it.

But at least conflict seems to have been avoided this time.

Yeah, I'm going to guess that Kmart isn't going to get as many copies of Black Ops 2 next year.

@subyman said:

What the hell does Activision care if a fan gets the game a bit early? I mean seriously, what harm can he do enjoying the multiplayer with a few friends? I don't understand why they would put themselves in a bad light with super-fans that manage to get the game a day or so early. Crazy.

Well, given the persistent progression system, Acti probably doesn't want Kmart players having a lead in weapon/perk unlocks.

Personally, my guess will be that stats will be reset to zero on those who choose to go early. MS isn't going to ban legit players off Live.

@iAmJohn said:

@sofacitysweetheart said:

@iAmJohn said:

@sofacitysweetheart said:

@AxleFGK said:

@Minos said:

So, battlefield 3 then...

i hear its a good game....

...if you enjoy EA spyware and a janky Bad Company 2 like experience.

Sofacitysweetheart, do you like anything? I'm serious, it seems like every time I see you post, it's you talking shit about how much some game or some thing sucks.

I'm disappointed that you don't pay attention to absolutely everything I do.

I already have a booked-up stalking schedule; I can't be everywhere at once, man!

Soooo, anyone up for Trackmania!!! LOL...

Just spin and fear tactics from Activision. They didn't like MS explicitly sanctioning pre-release access. Activision doesn't consider your license valid until the street-date. Playing the game before release (even offline), even having paid the full retail price, is identical to piracy.

What the hell does Activision care if a fan gets the game a bit early? I mean seriously, what harm can he do enjoying the multiplayer with a few friends? I don't understand why they would put themselves in a bad light with super-fans that manage to get the game a day or so early. Crazy.

Yeah if you guys play this game a day early were going to do something to your account but all you guys hacking in Black Ops..... You're cool!

They are fucked regardless.

It's silly, but at the same time, why do people care? Just wait for Nov. 8th like everyone else, it's a damn game, not heart surgery.

@bransonhuggins said:

Look, the problem is this. The people that sold the game entered into a contract with Activision to sale the game at a certain time, and not before. Hence a street date. They broke that contract by selling the game early, for whatever reason. Should you, the buying public be punished for this? Of course not. You didn't make the company break the street date, you merely prospered from it. They should not be punishing people for playing early, because they bought a game from a shady retailer.

Activision has the right, as a company, to be upset about this, but their issue should not be with the consumer, but with the retailer in this case. As this is not an issue that the consumer can stop. Now, should they be taking advantage of it, probably not. But then again, who amongst us isn't going to take the opportunity if they have it? Come on now.

That's pretty much what I have to say about all of this. A broken street date should mean the retailer gets punished, not the person who bought it. It's not up to the consumer to be keeping track of when a game is supposed to be officially released. If someone sees a hotly anticipated game they wanted on store shelves, they're going to buy it.

But at least conflict seems to have been avoided this time.

@Mystyr_E said:

well at least they're not putting in a horrible web-based browser and forcing you to download a game from their service when you CLEARLY own the retail disc, right? I mean, who would do that?

I agree about the Battlelog thing, but it's not actually a download that happens when you install from disk. Yeah, it clearly looks like a download, but DICE (or EA) were too lazy to make an installation script apparently, so they used the download progress bar in place of a real install one. I know this because I had the same "WTF, Really?" happen to me while installing the other day. It explains this all on their site. Why they couldn't atleast make it look like it was installing and not downloading? I have no idea.