Clearly IW has thrown in the towel

[lead_psychopath]

 

 

In all seriousness guys, when Bo2 came out, every single thread in the Activision multiplayer forums was "BO2 IZ THE WORST COD EVER IM TAKIN IT BACK Y'ALL".

 

With Ghosts, one out of every 3-4 threads were negative, lots of positive things came out.

 

My personal gripe with Ghosts is it gets boring really quick, and I'm not sure why. I'll play 3 games and I'll be like: "ok different game time..."

 

Having said that, I love Ghosts. I didn't buy any Micro DLC for Bo2, whereas Ghosts, I've bought several.

Why? Because they're way cooler.

 

A frigging WOLF?!? yes please.

Cats in Space? Well, I like cats, and I like space....

 

What did we get multiplayer-wise in Bo2? Camos and more camos. And plenty of these were totally stupid too: anyone remember the Bacon camo?

 

What I find awesome with Ghosts, is they will try anything. So do I think the devs want to make this kind of stuff? I sure do, if they were totally against, it wouldn't be coming out.

 

It's also the first COD game that hasn't taken itself too serious either, which is a bonus. I'm playing COD for fun, if I want Snoop Dogg to shriek stuff at me, I now have the option too. Yeah it's stupid, but again, I'm playing the game for fun.

[GRILL]

I totally get that it's for fun,

BUT - wouldn't it be more fun if you weren't paying for it?

I'm going to copy/paste my thoughts from a Skype convo I was having with fated & undad:

The reason why IW has "thrown in the towel", to me - is because they are actively fighting innovation. Titanfall, GTA V, BL2 shift codes, Minecraft, these are all examples of AAA games that have embraced the mindset that "maybe we shouldn't try and sell everything. Maybe we should continuously add on to a game to foster the community, rather then bleed them dry until the next yearly installment comes out.

By literally scaling back DLC to the point where it's called Micro DLC, IW are throwing credibility aside and essentially saying that anything goes, as long as hey make money. This is a game about shooting other human beings, it used to be about war - now it's about privileged children abusing marijuana and bragging about humping a corpse, and getting a killstreak from humping that corpse.

You say it's for the fans, so they can have customization options - if it was truly for that reason, it would be free.

[Matuzz]

Honestly I want them to fix the game but instead they have made 27 micro dlc packs and on top of that the regular map packs.

 

All this when I'm still after months having this glitch: http://community.callofduty.com/message/415053140 and I'm not alone with that one.

The PC version is horribly optimized and people are lagging with some serious gaming rigs. The PC version is also filled with hackers.

The spawn are honestly horrible, I keep always spawning next to an enemy on Ground War.

[lead_psychopath]

Even though I live in Europe, I'm a Capitalist through and through. They are selling fun, and people want to buy it/ will pay for it- why not? Simple supply and demand.

 

But Grill, you are 1000000000000000% correct, it should be free. Each CoD title since MW2 has taken in at least $1 billon, just from game sales. Imagine DLC on top of that. Now Micro DLC on top of that?

 

You're right, it should be free, they've made more than enough.

 

And Matuzz, how the hell can they have the time to create more Micro DLCs, but not enough time to fix actual problems? You are also right.

 

They did fix all the hackers on ps3 at least. But my friend and I were lagging too last night, and both of us have fine connections.

 

You two made great arguments, I'm not so convinced as I was earlier.

[Flammenwerfer]

You guys say that as if the same team that deals with the glitches and hacks are the same people that make these micro-DLCs. The entire dev team isn't working on these DLC packs, nor is the entire dev team working every day to fix glitches. Every time a glitch is fixed, two more appear. That's just the unfortunately reality of most software, and they are trying their best. When something in the game is changed, they need to get approval from the higher ups before they can do anything about it. Then they have to actually work on determining what is causing the issues. Fixing a glitch isn't as simple as a single click and a change in code. But of course, I'm going to get berated for this because I'm defending Infinity Ward and the actual programming progress they have to go through instead of saying they suck and everything should be free and everything like that.

[GRILL]

Please don't reduce our argument as "everything should be a handout". That's not what we are saying, that's not what I'm saying - and it frankly is just a cop out to accuse us of simply wanting everything for free. To me, this is a larger conversation about how to keep a gaming community loyal and positive - not with gimmicks, but with actual innovation. Both sides have valid points, but in the end I will always see the "pro MDLC" standpoint as corporate, and halting innovative progress as a result of a dated standard.

[lead_psychopath]

You guys say that as if the same team that deals with the glitches and hacks are the same people that make these micro-DLCs. The entire dev team isn't working on these DLC packs, nor is the entire dev team working every day to fix glitches. Every time a glitch is fixed, two more appear. That's just the unfortunately reality of most software, and they are trying their best. When something in the game is changed, they need to get approval from the higher ups before they can do anything about it. Then they have to actually work on determining what is causing the issues. Fixing a glitch isn't as simple as a single click and a change in code. But of course, I'm going to get berated for this because I'm defending Infinity Ward and the actual programming progress they have to go through instead of saying they suck and everything should be free and everything like that.

The problem is though, that Ghosts still has the same engine as MW1. If it got more complex, it wouldn't be as easy to hack, but no matter how they disguise it, its still the same engine, just heavily modded. Hacks are going to happen.

But surely even you agree werfer that this game got it worse than any other COD? Previous CODs, I've never gotten into a game where people are actively hacking (unless it was an old COD). Three weeks in, every second game of Ghosts was hacked.

True its fixed now, but I do still get the odd game thats in a dodgy crowd.

[The Clay Bird]

Please don't reduce our argument as "everything should be a handout". That's not what we are saying, that's not what I'm saying - and it frankly is just a cop out to accuse us of simply wanting everything for free. To me, this is a larger conversation about how to keep a gaming community loyal and positive - not with gimmicks, but with actual innovation. Both sides have valid points, but in the end I will always see the "pro MDLC" standpoint as corporate, and halting innovative progress as a result of a dated standard.

 

 

I think this is the most important point.

 

The micro DLC itself I don't have a problem with, because in fact it is less of a dated standard and a relatively new addition to CoD.  But I think what needs to be looked at, and what is being looked at is overall support for games, specifically with different studios making the games in a 3 year rotation, and some fans being more loyal to some studios than other, for the franchise to continue to thrive, activision may have to look at the way they support each indivdual title differently.  I think they tested this with the camo dlc for BO2 a few weeks ago.  Like i've said before, the paradigm is shifting in the way dlc and support for games is being received, and it simply won't work for activision to just follow the same Call of Duty dlc blueprint from years past simply because thats the way we've always done it.  That stifles advancement and creatvity

[lead_psychopath]

Please don't reduce our argument as "everything should be a handout". That's not what we are saying, that's not what I'm saying - and it frankly is just a cop out to accuse us of simply wanting everything for free. To me, this is a larger conversation about how to keep a gaming community loyal and positive - not with gimmicks, but with actual innovation. Both sides have valid points, but in the end I will always see the "pro MDLC" standpoint as corporate, and halting innovative progress as a result of a dated standard.

Dude, if I can reduce your argument to "everything should be a handout" in one post, I should get into politics...

Where is the divide between gimmicks and innovation? Its totally personal and opinionated.

I feel the wolf DLC is totally innovative. But (on assumption) you would not.

I know if I was 12 I would beg my parents for the Snoop Dogg voice pack.

I'm 24, I have no intention of buying it, but it's still ingenious. Many people will still buy it, even though plenty of people think it's stupid.

And that is why Call of Duty, even though it's past it's prime, will continue for many more years. It appeals to the masses.

We can moan about it all we like, regardless of wether micro DLC should exist, or if it should be a better game altogether, or wether it's fine as it is.

Opinions are opinions, and until a proper "COD killer" comes out, we are all going to be playing a hacked-to-hell-cash-cow-COD. Loyal or not, millions of people will still buy the game, hoping for something different.

But as it is, I like Ghosts, and its slow paced gameplay. I just wish they got rid of the IED, then it would be awesome.

As I like to put sidenotes in my posts, I'll add another now. I'm really hoping that Treyarch are creating a whole new engine, so in a years time, when we are all wondering what's going to happen next, Treyarch will be like:

"well you know how we had 2 years...well, we actually properly made a new engine... Ta Da!".

[GRILL]

Dude, if I can reduce your argument to "everything should be a handout" in one post, I should get into politics...

My bad, lead_psycopath - that comment was directed towards Flammenwerfer saying we wanted "everything for free". I think both sides make valid points, def not trying to attack you or accuse you of saying that haha

.Edit: Thanks clay. Hell I bought some of the MDLC in BO2. It's not ALL bad - but in the bigger picture, it seems like this "pay more for less" method will be ever present and ever growing... and that's what worries me.

Regardless, it makes it more fun, and in the end - I think that's a positive thing.

[lead_psychopath]

Lol. Its cool man. I just wanted to point out that everyone is arguing for no reason.

We all want a better COD game, and don't want to have to resort to buying micro dlcs for it.

[Hells Warrrior]

All I'll say is do not blame the developer, blame the powers that be (Activision). I used to like Activision back in the mid 80's through to about 2000. They then changed and said, lets fleece these idiots for as much as we can.

 

I can gaurentee you, that was pretty much word for word what was said in the board room at Activision. I know how businesses work, I know the philosophy of bringing in as much cash as possible and as fast as possible. They have shat upon gamers for the past few years, not the studios, they are just doing what Activision are telling them to do. Sure they have certain free reign on creativity, but Activision tell them what to do.

 

Micro DLC's in game are just a way of any publisher trying to fleece us for as much cash as they can possibly get - without us and without our cash, they are nothing.

[DeathBringerZen]

I am not against Micro Transactions myself, but I would rather see more effort put into the game itself before I part with any cash for add-ons.

 

BO1 leaderboards were broken, and a lot of people could not register rounds because of it. Why was this never fixed? BO2 leaderboards seen a ton of people wiped from it, and it too looks unlikely to be addressed. Extinction leaderboards are also broken and probably will not be fixed either.

 

Why should I give them a penny more when they cannot even make a game that works properly in the first place!?

 

I do think that Flammen puts up a good case, but I agree with the majority that these additions are not innovative in the least. They are gimmicks that will appeal to a small majority, when in reality they should be fixing their game(s). Why should we give them any more of our hard earned cash when they are failing to deliver with the main products?

 

I hope the extended development times that each studio has is put to good use, but I fear the extention they have will be designed to allow them to concentrate of giving us more additions to the main product, as opposed to actually making the main product better.

[PINNAZ]

Regardless of the game. The amount of on-disc content should always outweigh DLC content. That's what disappoints me nowadays. For some games I'll wait 10 months until they release the "GotY" edition for a quarter of the price & get every DLC with it.

It really shits me when I buy a game at release date & by the end if it's life cycle, what's shipped on disc is only half a game.

[Hells Warrrior]

I may be in the minority, but games used to be huge, take days to complete rather than hours. I mean, campaign mode for BOII was done in a day, the campaign was far too short, the DLC is great but should be part of the game, we should have a lots to play with and then add even more.

[The Clay Bird]

 

Dude, if I can reduce your argument to "everything should be a handout" in one post, I should get into politics...

My bad, lead_psycopath - that comment was directed towards Flammenwerfer saying we wanted "everything for free". I think both sides make valid points, def not trying to attack you or accuse you of saying that haha

.Edit: Thanks clay. Hell I bought some of the MDLC in BO2. It's not ALL bad - but in the bigger picture, it seems like this "pay more for less" method will be ever present and ever growing... and that's what worries me.

Regardless, it makes it more fun, and in the end - I think that's a positive thing.

 

 

 

To your "pay more for less" quote, i think that's a very valid point, and the example i'm thinking of is the BO2 prestige edition.  To advertise that as the only way to have access to nuketown zombies, and then weeks before release to tell people that by buying the season pass (which many many of us would have done anyway) you'd get access to it as well.  That was the biggest bait and switch in call of duty history, and although the micro dlc isn't anything like that, it does seem like it incentivises activision to include less on disc, and then sell more stuff as dlc later on

[83457]

All I'll say is do not blame the developer, blame the powers that be (Activision). I used to like Activision back in the mid 80's through to about 2000. They then changed and said, lets fleece these idiots for as much as we can.

 

I can gaurentee you, that was pretty much word for word what was said in the board room at Activision. I know how businesses work, I know the philosophy of bringing in as much cash as possible and as fast as possible. They have shat upon gamers for the past few years, not the studios, they are just doing what Activision are telling them to do. Sure they have certain free reign on creativity, but Activision tell them what to do.

 

Micro DLC's in game are just a way of any publisher trying to fleece us for as much cash as they can possibly get - without us and without our cash, they are nothing.

This is quite true. I'm old and I've been around.

Remember who we are as a country: after ww2, we took all of the Nazi brainwashing techniques and immediately implemented them into our advertising and political venues.

Even getting idiocy ward and trollarch fanboys to fight and cement thier belief that their developer is better.

A long as you vote demoncratic or retardlican, they can play both sides off of middle...same ploy, different game.

It's just evil. If you hear it enough times, you will start to think that you can save 15% by switching to Gieco.

I might have lost my point...oh, yeah, capitalism, like any other system fails when the rich get greedy and society becomes second place to finances.

This has happened to cod. They don't care as much about our satisfaction, or what we want our guns to look like, except in how it generates revenue for them.

If every camo had the artistic appeal of bo2's dragon camo, then they would be decent products to add on. But most of the bo2 camos were like a real cheesy cellphone background that was made in seconds.

I'm not trying to spread negativity, just backing up HW and voicing a lifetime of frustration at watching a combination of societal degradation coupled with mass apathy.

Shrug.

[DeathBringerZen]

This has happened to cod. They don't care as much about our satisfaction, or what we want our guns to look like, except in how it generates revenue for them.

Pretty much how most games are starting to turn out unfortunately. Look at mobile gaming... you get a game that get's released and incredibly, it's FREE! It's not though. You see most of these games, like Dead Trigger 2, Theme Park, and most recently Dungeon Keeper all require the players to part with SERIOUS cash if they are to progress through the games properly. Certain features are also completely locked out unless payments are made. You basically get the shell of the game free but have to pay to play it for more than a few hours.

EA are awful for it. They make a fortune of their ultimate team set up in FIFA. People spend thousands of pounds a month of the player packs, which I should note become absolutely useless and are not transferable from one game to the next in this annual series. My son has spent maybe... a few grand on his ultimate teams in the last 2 years. Ridiculous in this day and age that gaming has become a whoring mechanism. "If you want to touch me and play with me, you need to pay me. The more attractive I am, the more I charge"

No wonder Facebook purchased Oculus... it has money maker written all over it.

[FatedTitan]

 

 

Dude, if I can reduce your argument to "everything should be a handout" in one post, I should get into politics...

My bad, lead_psycopath - that comment was directed towards Flammenwerfer saying we wanted "everything for free". I think both sides make valid points, def not trying to attack you or accuse you of saying that haha

.Edit: Thanks clay. Hell I bought some of the MDLC in BO2. It's not ALL bad - but in the bigger picture, it seems like this "pay more for less" method will be ever present and ever growing... and that's what worries me.

Regardless, it makes it more fun, and in the end - I think that's a positive thing.

 

 

 

To your "pay more for less" quote, i think that's a very valid point, and the example i'm thinking of is the BO2 prestige edition.  To advertise that as the only way to have access to nuketown zombies, and then weeks before release to tell people that by buying the season pass (which many many of us would have done anyway) you'd get access to it as well.  That was the biggest bait and switch in call of duty history, and although the micro dlc isn't anything like that, it does seem like it incentivises activision to include less on disc, and then sell more stuff as dlc later on

 

 

 

Weeks?  Try the Sunday before release.

[AnkhRa]

Drill sargeant dlc seems like fun if R. Lee Ermey is quoting Full Metal Jacket "you ever suck a golf ball through a garden hose" while referring to the player as Gomer Pyle.

[Lenne]

They gave up ever since I left IW.