Worst fear confirmed: You can't launch Modern Warfare 3 without first launching Modern Warfare 2

PC Gamer: "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."

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Pretty much confirmed what everyone was expecting it was a dlc man I wish that it was $40 instead of $70 imo.

[sparky77]

Why would they do that when they know the masses will pay full price.

It's like sports games like FIFA, every year they release the same game with minor changes and charge full price and it's always a best seller.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

It's unfortunate sheep mindset ppl have.

[LordoftheCritics]

Its coz Acti Lizzard was selling off.

They put in the minimum effort in all their recent titles.

[GamingSinceForever]

Do you need FIFA 21 to launch FIFA 22?

Once you figure that out that should help you answer your question.

[Cacabunga]

If people don’t have the intention to boycott this then there is no hope anymore

[CombatEmu]

@Cacabunga

Exactly. The reason why Activision does this repeatedly is because people keep giving them money.

[Profchaos]

@caca if you're right into gaming and gaming news you probably know this entry is total trash but cod has its niche audience and that user base and it's full of people who I wouldn't call traditional gamers I've met quite a few people who play cod and only cod and don't want to know about gaming they simply know I buy a PlayStation and cod then I'm set

[crazyCoconuts]

Maybe I'll get into The Finals until the price comes down

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Finals rocks

[--Onilink--]

Putting aside the fact that it is obviously an overpriced DLC turned full game, I dont really get the point of the article and headline to what is actually being quoted.

They say “MW2 launcher is now MH HQ”, which in itself seems like a strange quote because it was already known all future COD games would launch from HQ (whether thats good or bad is a separate topic) from which you can launch MW2, Warzone or DMZ seamlessly, but if you launch MW3, it closes HQ and launches an entirely separate executable for MW3. But you are not really launching MW3 from MW2, that would be impossible for anyone that only own MW3

So in terms of being slow to load, yes its annoying, but what does that have to do with it being apparently tied to MW2? If anything, if it had been DLC I would have expected it to be tied seamlessly as well rather than how it does right now.

[gold_drake]

tracks with what ppl have been saying, that mw3 is a dlc ha.

[shinoff2183]

That's so crazy. This should be boycotted. It was a 30 dollar dlc at most and now this proves it. Shame cod fans getting jerked

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Yeah and ultimate ninja storm fans too my friend.

[InUrFoxHole]

Boycotted??? No... Forgotten, yes! Lol. Speaking with my wallet. I want MS to feel this pain. While I know this isn't their doing they need to know for the future we won't excuse this bs

[RNTody]

I'm not going to lie, I actually enjoyed Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2, they felt like the classic CoD package of getting a blockbuster campaign and an addictive multiplayer. But this, is just plain pathetic. People had the audacity to bash Miles Morales for being a DLC-turned game, which I vehemently disagreed with, but this is exactly that. To charge full price for this is an abomination to gaming and should be boycotted...if it was possible to boycott Call of Duty. This will set a precedent for how little effort you can make and still sell. And I'm pretty sure this is going to be the future of CoD under Microsoft. Maximum monetisation, minimum effort. They could have marketed this as an expansion, but they knew what they were doing.

[EazyC]

MW 2019 had flashes of something brilliant. Excellent campaign, and MP had some great ideas but was hampered by pretty bland maps and a totally botched Spec Ops mode.

It was very evident that IW had to drop meaningful post-launch updates immediately after it released to work on Warzone though.... even the minor issues people had with the MP were never addressed. And we all know what happened after Warzone released...

I have no doubt that if IW worked as a first-party studio and were given the time to craft something they genuinely wanted they would make something incredible, they're an extremely talented studio.

I'm very curious about what exactly they're doing now, they've disappeared off the radar in the last year or so.

[RNTody]

I agree, it had plenty of high quality stand-out moments. Clean House from Modern Warfare is one of the best missions the series has ever crafted, and the return of the Gillie suit in Modern Warfare 2 was a great throwback to a classic mission that didn't at all feel cheap or gimmicky, like the "No Russian" in this pile of crap felt like in the teaser footage. Why they had the brainless idea to hand over development for the final installment to Sledgehammer is beyond me, but not beyond Activision's cynical cash grab.

The multiplayer of the previous games was not a perfect experience like the original Modern Warfare 1 and 2, but it certainly got far more right than wrong, and had plenty of variety. I know it's easy to hate on CoD and I'm not even a big fan, but I had to admit MW1 and 2 reimaginings were worth my time and actually memorable.

I won't touch this game with a ten foot pole for the same reason I didn't touch Dead Space 3 many moons ago. I don't endorse practices that are terrible for the industry.

[Northpoint]

I stepped away from COD since playing the campaign of WW2 which I got for free and thought I would never buy another COD game. Then a buddy of mine said some of the original MW, MW2 guys returned to work on 2019 so I gave it shot and enjoyed it despite some online bugs and limited maps at the beginning. They were able to improve on it through time and made the game worth it. The whole time I thought it would be nice if they would continue to support the game with say 12 seasons instead of 6. Then I read the whole 2 year support rumor and thought this is definitely worth it so I pre-ordered MW2. MW2 was somewhat a disappointment for me and then reading that they're planning on releasing MW3 only after a year from MW2 while it still needs improvement means they will release another half-assed game so I bailed on preording MW3 and I was right about them bastards.

[repsahj]

You need the main game to launch the expansion. XD

[badz149]

LOL I can't believe this is what Sony was fighting for

[InUrFoxHole]

I don't think they were. Not this iteration anyway. I think Activision saw the writing on the wall and was trying to squeeze one more out. Atleast that's what it feels like

[CrimsonWing69]

So, if I buy this I need to own MW2?

[Plague-Doctor27]

No. Buying MW3 includes the data for MW2 aka COD HQ

[CrimsonWing69]

Ah ok, thanks.

[--Onilink--]

Not even the data for MW2, its not like you are installing the full MW2 game itself, just the HQ stuff which is basically no longer tied only to MW2

[--Onilink--]

This is just a completely terrible article generated from an even worse comment made by someone.

They launched COD HQ to be a HUB for all future CODs and now MW3 launches from there. Whether these kind of hubs are unnecessary steps or not, you are not launching MW3 from MW2, that is just plain misleading.

It will be like saying that next year’s COD launches from MW2 just because it will also launch from COD HQ

[Junghova]

Makes it really easy to say adios to cod for good

[The_Blue]

Damn and I wanted to buy this one. Oh well.

[--Onilink--]

It doesnt launch from MW2, the article is misleading as hell, they are just quoting a random comment from someone that decided that COD HQ is now the same thing as MW2 (despite already knowing that all future CODs will launch from HQ)
It is a dumb hub, but you dont need to have MW2 to launch MW3

[SPEAKxTHExTRUTH]

I think I’m going to pass on this years CoD. I’ve bought every single CoD that has come out but something feels slimy about this year’s release. Even my 11 year old son says it’s the same game every year and he doesn’t want it. When the kiddos can recognize this there might be a problem…

[Relientk77]

Wow....so it is literally DLC

[homeruz2]

I'm just gonna play the waiting game and buy it years later

[northpaws]

I honestly feel like MS got scammed, paying $70b for these craps.

[Tedakin]

Cause it was DLC that they decided to make a full release. It was totally floating around that this year's was an expansion to last year's a few months ago. Probably should have just stayed that way and it would have been better accepted.

[DOMination-]

It would have done the IP good to just take a break for a year. It really helped for Assassin's Creed a few years back.

Also, how bad are Sledgehammer? I feel like this studio always let the franchise down when its their turn to make a game.. either it's terrible or they need to be bailed out and then in this case, they didn't have a game at all it seems.

[Petebloodyonion]

Basically confirming what everyone knew!
That is a DLC sold at premium AAA price.

[jznrpg]

I haven’t played Call of Duty for about a decade maybe more and I don’t feel like I missed a thing.

[Tankbusta40]

My love of COD has been dwindling for a while now, but I will admit I always picked up the games and enjoyed them for a couple of weeks....Since I don't want 500gbs taken on the good ol hdd needing two to play three...I will pass on this series for the first time ever....

This is incredibly stupid

[Abear21]

My worst fears were confirmed when I heard Eminem rapping on the commercial—he’s the only thing more tired than COD

[archibold]

Oof, dlc for $70?
Is that what Xbox has come to? Sheesh. Selling mine now.

[Doomeduk]

Hang on how much did it cost Sony for insomniac to join them ?
Cod used to be the autumn showstopper a great single player and here's a multiplayer but this just lacks effort
Sony just announce a new socom MAG warhawk killzone remaster whatever please

[DarXyde]

So wait... Does this mean you need to have a physical/digitalcopy of MW2 just to play MW3? And if you don't have MW2, you can't play MW3?

If so, that's some ridiculous expectation and entitlement. White Knight Chronicles 2 did require you to beat the first, which is pretty grimy. But I *kinda* get it for narrative purposes and it did include the first game. It's tedious, but I think that's the best way that could have been handled.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're just expected to be a returning fan "because it's CoD", otherwise you're paying for both games really to play one.

Considering Kottick was content with reselling the same game over and over, this sounds like peak Activision.

[--Onilink--]

You dont need it, its a misleading article.

Someone decided to say COD HQ is the same as MW2. COD HQ is just a dumb HUB they created (starting with MW2) and its from where all COD titles will launch from now.

[raWfodog]

Nowhere near ‘my worst fear’ but, hyperbole aside, I guess this sucks for those who still care about CoD.

[Barlos]

Not my worst fear either.

The best thing people can do if they don't agree with these practices is to not buy the game.

[InUrFoxHole]

SPEAK WITH YOUR WALLET!!

[anast]

People will always buy a DLC for $70, I bet they could sell it for $80 or $90 and people will still buy it.

[DaniMacYo]

That troll face 🤣

[Soulsborne]

Imagine playing this garbage in 2023.

[Neonridr]

way to go Activision

[Neonridr]

love how nobody actually understands and just runs with a few dumb people's comments.

N4G in a nutshell.

The game DOES NOT require MW2 to be played. It needs COD HQ which is their new access launcher. Journalist desperate for a click and clearly it's working.

[Longadog]

M$: Why are you guys poor?

[z2g]

Welp. Hard pass them.

[Snookies12]

Yeah, that wasn't expected at all... Definitely not being sarcastic... Certainly not...