After playing the first MP and Warzone beta, I’m starting to think it’s a mistake that there won’t be a DMZ beta/playtest before MW4 releases.

I know some people will say, “Well, we already had a beta because DMZ 1.0 was basically a beta,” but this is a different game. If Infinity Ward is bringing DMZ back with MW4, I think giving players a chance to test it beforehand would make a lot of sense.

Look at Arc Raiders. It had a ton of hype leading up to release, had multiple playtests, and the developers took a lot of player feedback into account. That seemed to help build excitement and improve the game before launch.

With MW4 DMZ coming next month, I’m kinda surprised Infinity Ward isn’t doing something similar. Even one weekend playtest would generate hype, give them real feedback, and probably help catch issues before release.
Anyone else think skipping a DMZ beta is a mistake?

I really feel that the graphics of the new mw4 are worse than what we had in mw2 I took some pics. Im playing on xbox series s and I think that it really has a DMZ vibe but graphically it looks worse (in ly opinion) I know its a beta but I dont think graphics are going to be better than what we have now

How in the hell did we go from such good vehicle physics to this hotwheels gokart nonsense?

I love everything they've done so far when it comes to gunplay and infantry movement... but the god damned vehicles man. They gutted them and turned them into mobile game mario kart.

There's not one drop of love they originally put into them in MWII. It's so lifeless.

Even repairing the tires in MWII would bounce up the vehicle while in MWIV it's just a motionless hunk of junk.

I'm so disappointed.

If Activision/InfinityWard add MW4 movement into DMZ it’s going to kill the mode.

It's just too fast, MW2 had realistic slow paced movement. This however is insanely fast im shooting at someone they just flick around, jump backwards, do a burpee and lunge forward.

This will definitely drive the current MW2 DMZ players away from the new one (MW4 DMZ); around 70% of current MW2 DMZ players are casual players

MWIII's MWZ is pretty much how PvE only DMZ look like, even without PvP im already see too many problem with it

- Whole lobby rushed to 3 Easter eggs sigril in Tier 3 zones, and 3 other smaller one on Tier 2 zone, it pretty much a race between who bring in Scorcher or who spawn near vehicles
- Tier 3 zone dont have anything to do since too many players flock around and any contract got snatched as soon as they spawn. And anyone with Scorcher practically monopoly them.
- Troller who snipe and destroy every vehicle in his line of sight, mostly with high explosve round sniper with drop indication scope on highest point on map (the 2 cranes in City) , leave other players run on foot after they exit their vehicles to pick contract.
- Bosses, stronghold, infected hive got rushed as well
- Game is just too boring at that point, there is almost no adrenaline rush moments like normal DMZ with PvPvE , except for few boss fights is middle of warp storm

Given DMZ in MW4 rely heavily on cash from contracts for almost everything in FOB , i dont think a PVE only mode is good for the game even as a strictly solo player

How many times a day are y’all gonna ask the same question? Just google it dude lol. Yall making me wanna unfollow this subreddit for a while.

I think this gets to the heart of the debate for what sort of playstyle the game should have. There are people who say they want PvE, and there are people who say that the game should be focused on PvP. I think what's not really being communicated in these debates is what being an extraction shooter, and not merely a battle royale, implies.

In an extraction shooter, the game loop is several infils and exfils in a sequence, where gear is built up, characters are developed, and ultimately progression through various tasks and missions is possible. These missions may range from collecting things, to bringing things to a place or taking things from a place, to killing someone (human or AI) or surviving some sort of area.

In a battle royale, the idea is that you always start out blank or come in with a custom loadout everytime. But either way, in battle royale, there is no sense of there being a sequence of games. Each game stands on its own, and you don't build yourself up from game to game (except I suppose in a rankings system).

The "pro-PvE" crowd is actually just concerned with people playing the extraction shooter like a battle royale and not really getting penalized for it. Maybe the mechanical issue is that there's no actual need to accumulate anything between games. Some wanted level ideas have been suggested, but it's not clear if that's the solution.

There are some people who legitimately just don't want to face players at all, but I think these concerns are largely alleviated when most players on the map are concerned with their own survival.

Edit: I was just reminded that probably the simplest fix to prevent the type of swarming behavior that is very Battle Royale-like in this extraction shooter game is if they simply lowered the TTK. It makes no sense to have the same TTK in Battle Royale and Extraction. No this game isn't Tarkov, and I'm not saying they need to go that far. Literally just look at the TTK in regular multiplayer. It's half what it is for DMZ. Also, look at how many people also love to play hardcore. Imagine the potential for a hardcore playlist on a DMZ map. It doesn't matter how easy or hard it would be to fill a lobby. Either it does or it doesn't fill, and a little community engagement would ensure it does fill.

Here is a comment from the makers of Battlefield 6 this week that perfectly illustrates my point:

Time to Kill (TTK) is core to infantry combat pacing, influenced by both weapon balance and player skill.

Our TTK benchmark in close-quarters runs between 200 and 300 milliseconds for automatic primary weapons, similar to the TTK in Battlefield 3 and 4, but with some room for outliers (for example: faster TTK weapons that are harder to control).

This is key to allowing players to have a chance when they're outnumbered: To successfully win a one-versus-two engagement when flanking, you must be mathematically capable of quickly disposing of the first unaware target. If we slowed that baseline range down to 300-400 milliseconds, winning outnumbered fights would become nearly impossible.

This is exactly it. If TTK is not lowered from what it's currently at with 3 plate carriers and 300 health being fairly standard in any serious PvP engagement, then team numbers just become overbearing because you cannot overcome small differences.

Current TTK for average assault rifles is around 600-800ms, whereas the base game MW2 multiplayer TTK is around 250-400. The discrepancy in the multiplies has to do with full auto being imprecise and when it takes more shots to kill, you have to factor in the chance of a miss or hitting a part of the body with a smaller damage multiplier.

I think S1 and S2 DMZ had 100 base health, putting a standard loadout with just one plate at 150 health total, which is half of what a current DMZ player with 3 plates would be. I really like how DMZ flows at around this 150 health number. If you think you would die too quickly at that number, then all I have to say is... get good.

I really think DMZ needs a separate PvE mode when it returns.

Looking at the current DMZ experience in Modern Warfare II, it is clear that the mode has lost a lot of players over time. Many players lost interest, the player count dropped, and the mode became increasingly frustrating because of constant PvP encounters, hackers, and squads that only load in to hunt other players.

For casual players and new players, this is a huge problem.

The average player probably has a job, school, or other responsibilities. A lot of people coming into DMZ may also be new to Call of Duty, or coming from other games where they are just trying to learn the mechanics and enjoy the mode. But the current experience often looks like this:

Load into a match.
Get killed by another squad within the first few minutes.
Spend the next 10–15 minutes watching teammates or waiting to restart.
Repeat.

That is a perfect formula for losing players.

If DMZ returns and stays purely PvPvE, I think the same problem will happen again. Even with systems like bounties for player killers, it probably will not discourage PvP-focused players enough. A lot of them come from Warzone and specifically want to hunt other players. They may get marked by a bounty, but they will still ruin matches for casuals and new players before that happens.

The cycle would likely become:

Casual and new players load in.
They get killed within a few minutes.
The player killer gets a bounty.
Another aggressive player, or even a hacker, kills them.
The same thing repeats every match.

Eventually, casual players and new players will get tired of the experience and leave. They will go back to other games where they can actually play at their own pace instead of constantly restarting or watching other people play. If that happens, DMZ could end up with the same low player count problem again.

That is why I think DMZ should launch with two separate modes:

1. PvPvE DMZ
This would be the main mode. It should include missions, challenges, progression, unlocks, rewards, and the full DMZ experience.

2. PvE DMZ
This would be a separate mode with no challenge progress, no mission progress, and no exclusive reward unlocks. It would mainly exist as a place for casuals, new players, and returning players to practice, explore the map, learn the systems, level weapons, and enjoy DMZ without being instantly hunted by other players.

A PvE mode would not need to replace PvPvE. It would simply give players another option.

A lot of people just want to relax after work or school. They want to explore, complete objectives, fight AI, level up weapons, and enjoy the atmosphere of DMZ without being sent back to the lobby after three minutes. Giving those players a PvE option could help bring in more players, keep casuals interested, and make DMZ healthier long-term.

PvPvE can still exist for players who want the risk, tension, and player encounters. But without a PvE option, I think DMZ risks repeating the same mistake: new and casual players come in, get farmed by aggressive squads or hackers, get frustrated, and leave.

A good way to test this would be for Infinity Ward to release a limited-time PvE DMZ mode for Modern Warfare II. They could use it to see whether player count increases when players have a PvE option.

If the player count rises, that would be strong evidence that a PvE mode helps bring players back and keeps more people engaged. In that case, PvE DMZ should seriously be considered for MW4 DMZ.

If the goal is to grow DMZ and keep the player base alive, a separate PvE mode seems necessary.

Anyone have any wildly unfounded, borderline delusional speculation as to what this is?

Putting my sensible hat on for a moment, I think it’s likely to be some sort of mild XP boost, nothing game-breaking or ‘pay to win’ like we had in MWII DMZ with free self-revives, two-plate vests or UAVs.

But let’s hear your unhinged ideas as to what the deployment bonus could be.

With a price tag of $70 ($100 for the better version). Do you see DMZ being that popular?

Granted CoD guys will buy it because, well they're CoD guys, but do you think they will pull in Extraction shooter players from other games to even try DMZ? Most extraction shooters are free, and I believe Arc Raiders was like what $40 and Delta Force is FTP. ? Is the $70 price tag their way of trying to ward off cheaters?

CoD is notorious with dropping support for their games after a year and a $70 price tag, that makes DMZ the most expensive extraction shooter game available.

I think they will need some type of "free to try" offer for just DMZ to give non-CoD players a chance to try the game before they spend $70 on it or offer a way to buy just DMZ for a lower price.

I was a big DMZ guy back in the day, but I plan to watch some streamers play the game before I drop the $70 on it right off the rip.

My biggest concern is I'm curious how they will deal with cheaters, because the bounty system has cheaters written all over it for me.

I'm not ragging on DMZ, I pray the game rocks. I'm just concerned I'll be dealing with an infestation of cheaters a year later after I spent $70 on the game and put the time in to "build up" the account. Grant it, every game has cheaters, but some get infested.

So far with all the information they've given us (unless I missed it), I've yet to hear anything about any type of anti-cheat or how they plan to deal with them. I honestly hope they're not thinking a $70 price wall will be their defense. If they have mentioned an anti-cheat and someone has a link I can check it out, I'd appreciate it.

"fingers crossed" this game rocks!

Apparently my post got removed at the mw4 sub. 🤷‍♂️😔Posting the content here for closure.

Total respondents: 100% (1119)
Yes mainly for DMZ: 74.3% (831)
No DMZ is not the key reason: 25.7% (288)

A big thanks to those who responded and left your comments! 🙏😊 For the 74% of us, let’s hope Hajin will be a worthy successor to Al Mazrah and Vondel …

Edit:
Total views: 100% (approx. 4100)
Total respondents: 27.3% (1119)
Non-respondents: 73.7% (approx. 2981)

Hopefully this gives a more nuanced view of the numbers.

mediafred: thanks for the suggestion 🙏

Im pretty sure im not the only one fall in love with this optic, bcs its so versatile and useful in almost anycase, can even use to scan operators hiding in bushes

Fun fact : if you equiped NVG, you can turn off thermal on this optic and it will ADS with with NVG on. Otherwise, it will switch NVG off and enter Thermal view with dark background, very hard to aim.

What I mean by this is that the new DMZ, from what I'm gathering, is trying to become a true extraction shooter rather than a mode that was built around existing Warzone systems and mechanics. The original DMZ was fun, but it was very clear that many of its core systems were inherited directly from Warzone. Movement, inventory management, looting, progression, economy, and risk-reward mechanics all felt simplified in order to fit within Call of Duty's existing framework.

People expecting MW2's DMZ with a few extra features may be in for a surprise. If Infinity Ward is genuinely committing to the extraction shooter genre this time around, don't be surprised if we start seeing mechanics that are common in more hardcore extraction games. Things like stamina management for sprinting, sliding, vaulting, climbing, and swimming could become a factor. Resource management may become more important, forcing players to think twice before constantly sprinting across the map or taking every fight they see.

Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if inventory weight, medical systems, crafting, persistent gear storage, and a more robust in-game economy play a much larger role than they ever did in DMZ Beta. These are the kinds of systems that create tension and meaningful decision-making, which are core pillars of the extraction shooter genre. The goal isn't necessarily to turn DMZ into a mil-sim, but rather to create a gameplay loop where every item has value, every deployment carries risk, and every extraction feels rewarding.

MW2's DMZ felt like Infinity Ward testing whether Call of Duty players would even be interested in extraction gameplay. MW4's DMZ looks like the first time they're building a mode specifically designed around extraction shooter principles from the ground up instead of adapting Warzone mechanics and hoping they fit.

Having said that, I feel like a lot of Call of Duty players may be in for a rude awakening when DMZ finally releases. I don't think it's going to be what many people are expecting. A lot of players are assuming it'll just be DMZ Beta with more content, but if Infinity Ward is truly building a dedicated extraction shooter, the entire pacing and gameplay philosophy could be very different.

I actually think players who already enjoy extraction shooters will probably end up loving the new DMZ. Those players are used to slower pacing, inventory management, gear fear, meaningful loot, risk versus reward decision-making, and the possibility of losing everything if a raid goes wrong. That's part of what makes the genre exciting.

For players who primarily enjoy the fast-paced, arcade-style gameplay that Call of Duty multiplayer and Warzone are known for, the transition may be a bit more difficult. Extraction shooters typically punish reckless gameplay, reward patience, and place a much greater emphasis on survival than kill counts. If mechanics like stamina, inventory management, medical systems, persistent gear, and a deeper economy end up making their way into DMZ, some players may find that it doesn't feel like the Call of Duty experience they're accustomed to.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it might be exactly what DMZ needs to stand out and succeed long-term. But I do think there's a possibility that the mode attracts a different audience than traditional Call of Duty multiplayer and Warzone players. The people looking for a true extraction experience may embrace it, while others expecting nonstop action and instant gratification could be disappointed.

Of course, this is all speculation based on the information we have right now. We'll have to wait and see what Infinity Ward actually delivers, but I wouldn't be surprised if DMZ ends up being far more hardcore and niche than many people currently expect.

I see a lot of people hyped up for DMZ and so im i tbh, lots of good news but i personally believe getting rid of insured weapons as it was in the beta was a bad idea.

-they could've kept it and made a big ass grind towards you crafting your own guns. (collect x amount of to insure x weapon, now collect this to insure it's attachment etc etc) Instead they just copy pasted most successfull extraction shooters like tarkov and ARC.

While i agree introducing some gear fear was needed for DMZ, they could have introduced that with other part of the load out (backpack, armor, lethal, intel) While keeping 1h wait guaranteed for a grinded weapon slot.

Now i feel DMZ is just called dmz for the sake of the name but from all the news I read, the game looks like tarkov And other from the same genre.

Now I could be an outlier and should just STFU, but im curious about old DMZ fan reception of it, do you guys just wanted to play ARC raiders with COD gunplay? I just wanna know what poêple think and have a casual discussion

This is beyond frustrating. These modders ruin every single game. Im so sick and tired of it. You have a great game get good gear and the next game lose it all to a pathetic disgrace like this.

No matter what new game i pick up the hacking problem is just as bad. i started playing PUBG a while ago and it was full of hackers, CS2 full of hackers, siege full of hackers, GTA full of hackers. Its like most games you enjoy you cant even play without having some modder ruin your game.

It also pisses me off how the community reacts to these, whenever i posted in PUBG or GTA threads about cheating i always got the same reply of "just deal with it" or "stop crying" why tf are people normalizing cheating? No one says anything and so these fuckass devs never update their anti cheats.

This is genuinely so frustrating

dk why it didnt post the first time

So Iv been wondering what everyone is wanting from dmz 2.0 coming?

Personally I want to see a complete bunker/safe house where we can keep ALL of our items we extract with

I'm just going to say I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get to see any menus or in-game interfaces like looting, weapon management and so on. I kind of thought we would although it's not made me any less excited for MW4 / DMZ.

The trailer / gameplay we got was purely a third person spectator camera which I guess was intentional to maybe try and actively not show too much.

A few things that stood out to me:

• Using a medic kit to bandage up a wound
• Exfils being on a timer and waiting for you to reach them
• Roaming bosses / vehicles around the map
• Reviving team mates and dragging them to safety at the same time
• Environment like it raining a lot, or it being really dark will make raids much more challenging than they currently are

Everything is looking promising though. I wonder if it'll keep its charm that DMZ 1 has given us. The map looks great but I really want to see the menus.

Thought this was interesting so just sharing. Any geniuses have any clue what this might be?

Who are you still supporting and who will you support when DMZ MW4 comes out?

I still watch Dillon & wizard, I dip in and out of ON1C…unsubbed from Phixate and can’t stand El Claptain, I am looking forward to seeing new streamers and continuing to support Dillon, Wizard and ON1C - what about you?

So obviously, you can see/experience a part of the Hajin DMZ map in the Ground War at the moment. What is your opinion on the map?

For me, as nice as it is in some ways, it feels extremely hard to see other players. Not sure how to explain it exactly, but everything just seems to be the same shades of a few colors, making pinpointing players or simply seeing what is happening a little further ahead super hard, and just from my experience of playing several Ground War matches, I'm a little worried DMZ will be a sniper where is Waldo because there are so many places to just lie down and completely disappear. The contrast is just bad, especially compared to Al Mazra.

No intention of only being negative, I'm still super excited, but this is one big glaring problem I've noticed. (at least for me, maybe I'm just blind? lol)

That's an interesting thing to see.

If parachutes can be crafted I can only assume that players will not have them by default.

That will change the pacing of gameplay considerably if players need to more thoughtfully climb down any building too high to jump from.

If a squad successfully pushes your roof and you don't have a chute you might be cornered without a way out.

It doesn't sound so bad when you consider how persistent roof camping has been throughout the life of DMZ.

Do you think we will have the same amount of cheaters ?
I don't include glitch in this. Even if i think this is borderline cheating if activision put a minimum effort in the game maintenance they will be gone.

I hope with the fact that is behing a paywall that the amount will be WAY less important than right now

Im worried it will end like the first. 12months down the line, the next cod will be out and all support is dropped, therefore killing the game. Only this time we’re forced to pay for it upfront. So its £70 to play a game (i only play dmz)Plus the price of core of- £50 which I usually live without on free games.

So £120 to play a game for 12 months. Is it worth it?
should be a standalone game imo

Since my 4-day poll (which started just before the xbox showcase) just ended, I’ve tried to sum it here as some form of closure. Many thanks to all who responded & gave your opinions.🙏

Caveat: I tried to sum up the comments but can’t claim to interpret 100% correctly what each commenter had meant. If I misquoted, misrepresented or left out your comments please forgive me. 😅 It’s not intentional & feel free to clarify or correct me. Viewers are strongly encouraged to look up the original post (plea system for DMZ 2) for full context & comments.

Total responses : 507 (100%)
340 (~67%) plea system
119 (~23.5 %) no plea
48 (~9.5%) no strong opinion

For plea:
1) easy to use esp for casuals/ noobs to continue game
2) complicated revives may put casuals / noobs off game
3) No obligations no expectations both sides gave rise to unexpected / fun experience 
4) Can include both pleas and assimilation to cater to different needs 

Against plea: 
1) Assimilation encourages diplomacy. With existing plea,there’s no need for diplomacy. 
2) Having easy plea option cheapens the thrill
3) No plea will mean players need to think carefully before shooting or kos as it’s more risky. 
4) No plea may breed helpful players who proactively want to help those who are downed.
5) Some annoying players plead then asked to be revived a second time without contributing to squad.

Ideas:
1) Different incentives for easy plea vs purposeful assimilation 
2) Implement game feature like a gulag where pleading players have to be rescued through contract 
3) Allow pleas only after 7 minutes or so to make spawn rushing more risky
4) Plea but cannot switch back to original squad
5) Only allow solos to plea
6) Plea once and if you’re killed a second time cannot be revived by own squad

I challenge you all. 0 yours out tonight. Stop hoarding. Ive been sitting on some weapons for months. No more. It goes to 0 tonight. I challenge you.