- Status
robwright
Distinguished
- Feb 16, 2006
- 1,129
- 7
- 19,285
@Alidan
Ouch. That Mass Effect comment hit close to home. Good point.
Also good point on the servers in a shooter vs. MMO. I guess the bottom line for me is, I'm not offended by this at all because I think paying a subscription fee for an MMO for years on end is insane, but if there's a market for it, then who the F am I to judge, right? As long as I can still play CoD online without an Elite membership, then I'm okay.
Ouch. That Mass Effect comment hit close to home. Good point.
Also good point on the servers in a shooter vs. MMO. I guess the bottom line for me is, I'm not offended by this at all because I think paying a subscription fee for an MMO for years on end is insane, but if there's a market for it, then who the F am I to judge, right? As long as I can still play CoD online without an Elite membership, then I'm okay.
robwright
Distinguished
- Feb 16, 2006
- 1,129
- 7
- 19,285
[citation][nom]cloakster[/nom]Steam has had this type of service for free for years...[/citation]
Indeed it has. And if you gave sodium pentathol to Gabe Newell and asked him if he could go back in time and figure out a way to charge some fee for at least parts of the Steam subscription service, I think you know what his answer would be.
Indeed it has. And if you gave sodium pentathol to Gabe Newell and asked him if he could go back in time and figure out a way to charge some fee for at least parts of the Steam subscription service, I think you know what his answer would be.
clonazepam
Distinguished
- Jul 10, 2010
- 2,629
- 0
- 21,310
I think what we're seeing is that in the real world, there's still only 24 hours in a day. Until the tools used to make video games drastically advances so that a reasonable number of employees can work 8-10 hr shifts and get twice as much quality work done, we'll continue seeing the same engines and the same formulas used year after year.
CoD titles certainly lack innovation in regards to some other titles out there. If they built a new engine, new technologies, the workforce has to increase to meet it. Then there's still no guarantees they'll sell more copies to make additional profit to offset the above added costs of production. I think right now they're pretty good at predicting the # of copies sold. Anytime a company invests millions into a game, they're taking a gamble, even if CoD is in the title.
It's hard for me to complain anymore... mostly b/c everyone else is complaining about the same things. The best I can do now, since Call of Duty 3, is not buy their titles.
CoD titles certainly lack innovation in regards to some other titles out there. If they built a new engine, new technologies, the workforce has to increase to meet it. Then there's still no guarantees they'll sell more copies to make additional profit to offset the above added costs of production. I think right now they're pretty good at predicting the # of copies sold. Anytime a company invests millions into a game, they're taking a gamble, even if CoD is in the title.
It's hard for me to complain anymore... mostly b/c everyone else is complaining about the same things. The best I can do now, since Call of Duty 3, is not buy their titles.
captaincharisma
Glorious
- Oct 13, 2004
- 10,959
- 76
- 45,290
Activision will have no problem getting users for this. especially the xbox 360 user base as MS already has proven they will buy anything no matter how badly made it is
enforcer22
Distinguished
- Sep 10, 2006
- 1,692
- 0
- 19,790
Sorry Alidan i don't agree with your assumed comment about OFP. IMO best ever hands down FPS ever made. If operation flash point were to be basically updated to a engine thats not um 2 decades old! i would be all over that like.... well you see where i am going. Nothing more fun then a game where the devs put some real time into it. Nothing less fun then a average death match pos game that seems to pass as a good fps these days. I guess the closest thing ill get to a good FPS anymore is Battlefield so here is hoping the 3rd is good.
Also on topic here i prefer steams way of doing this. I know its not totally the same but, It's as far as i care to go with the idea. I sure wont pay for it no matter who does it. It doesn't add anything that hasn't been in a fps for many years anyways other then a GUI irc channel.. Even thats free!
Also on topic here i prefer steams way of doing this. I know its not totally the same but, It's as far as i care to go with the idea. I sure wont pay for it no matter who does it. It doesn't add anything that hasn't been in a fps for many years anyways other then a GUI irc channel.. Even thats free!
That was a long ass read for basically saying that they're doing what other FPS games have done for years. Only they're looking for a way to charge for it, and using "free DLC" as a way a justify it. As long as EA doesn't mess up majorly, I'll be busy with Battlefield 3 for a long time.
gm0n3y
Distinguished
- Mar 13, 2006
- 3,441
- 0
- 20,780
I've played many, many hours of Call Of Duty. COD2 anyways. I've play quite a few hours of COD4 and a few hours of COD5, but gave up after that. At least this 'service' sounds like it will be giving functionality similar to dedicated servers. Hopefully that will cut down on the cheating. Still not going to play since the multiplayer support is still worse than COD2, 4, or 5.
[citation][nom]robwright[/nom]I have a strange feeling that if it was EA that introduced a paid service like this for B3, there'd be a much different public reaction from gamers. I'd bet I'd be reading comments like "BF3 FTW!!!" with people arguing that EA, unlike Activision, is actually innovating with its shooter franchise.In any case, I wonder if people reacted with this much hatred when publishers first introduced paid subscriptions with MMOs, or if this negative reaction is focused mostly on Activision and its CEO.[/citation]
my beef with this is that they are adding social stuff to the game and throwing in free dlc...pc used to get dlc for free all the time. ALSO THIS TECH IS OLD AND STALE, THE game is old and stale and the maps are too damn small.
my beef with this is that they are adding social stuff to the game and throwing in free dlc...pc used to get dlc for free all the time. ALSO THIS TECH IS OLD AND STALE, THE game is old and stale and the maps are too damn small.
cmartin011
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2010
- 319
- 0
- 18,780
Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! Battlefield 3!! opss sorry 🙂
cmartin011
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2010
- 319
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]robwright[/nom]@AlidanOuch. That Mass Effect comment hit close to home. Good point. Also good point on the servers in a shooter vs. MMO. I guess the bottom line for me is, I'm not offended by this at all because I think paying a subscription fee for an MMO for years on end is insane, but if there's a market for it, then who the F am I to judge, right? As long as I can still play CoD online without an Elite membership, then I'm okay.[/citation]
the mass effect comment is true, sadly, and they aren't even hiding the fact that its ea intervention.
now lets look at the price. they say cheapest or at least infer it, so what is their competition on the subscription side... im looking at mmos. now most mmos started at 10$ a month, but moved to 15.
runescape, i believe is 5$ a month, so to be cheaper, they are talking about 15$ or less, possibly 5$ or less, and subscribers get free map packs.
map packs cost what is it, 15-20$ each, so its between 1 month - 4 months to have the map pack payed for, and however often they come out, i cant imagine the packs coming out before a premium subscription payed for the map pack. so lets assume 2 a year at 5 $ a month.
that comes to 60$ a year, 30-40 of that is only for map packs, so, you pay an extra 20$ a year for services that other people are pointing out are free with other fpses for years.
[citation][nom]EnFoRceR22[/nom]Sorry Alidan i don't agree with your assumed comment about OFP. IMO best ever hands down FPS ever made. If operation flash point were to be basically updated to a engine thats not um 2 decades old! i would be all over that like.... well you see where i am going. Nothing more fun then a game where the devs put some real time into it. Nothing less fun then a average death match pos game that seems to pass as a good fps these days. I guess the closest thing ill get to a good FPS anymore is Battlefield so here is hoping the 3rd is good.Also on topic here i prefer steams way of doing this. I know its not totally the same but, It's as far as i care to go with the idea. I sure wont pay for it no matter who does it. It doesn't add anything that hasn't been in a fps for many years anyways other then a GUI irc channel.. Even thats free![/citation]
i just watched a video of that game. it is a good shooter, but its not the best tactical shooter. i believe that it was rainbow 6, or something like that, were you could plan out where each squad mate goes, how long they should wait to continue, and so on. that was honestly the best tactical game, in the way that you could send a squad mate to the other side of a room, have them create a deversion, than come in the other side and pick people off. the best tactical shooters are behind us with not future game it seams.
now lets also look at the engine that you have a problem with. how much have fpses changed in the last... post halo?
besides graphics getting better, not much at all.
now i can deal with graphics staying how they are now better than most people, and i play on a pc.
the mass effect comment is true, sadly, and they aren't even hiding the fact that its ea intervention.
now lets look at the price. they say cheapest or at least infer it, so what is their competition on the subscription side... im looking at mmos. now most mmos started at 10$ a month, but moved to 15.
runescape, i believe is 5$ a month, so to be cheaper, they are talking about 15$ or less, possibly 5$ or less, and subscribers get free map packs.
map packs cost what is it, 15-20$ each, so its between 1 month - 4 months to have the map pack payed for, and however often they come out, i cant imagine the packs coming out before a premium subscription payed for the map pack. so lets assume 2 a year at 5 $ a month.
that comes to 60$ a year, 30-40 of that is only for map packs, so, you pay an extra 20$ a year for services that other people are pointing out are free with other fpses for years.
[citation][nom]EnFoRceR22[/nom]Sorry Alidan i don't agree with your assumed comment about OFP. IMO best ever hands down FPS ever made. If operation flash point were to be basically updated to a engine thats not um 2 decades old! i would be all over that like.... well you see where i am going. Nothing more fun then a game where the devs put some real time into it. Nothing less fun then a average death match pos game that seems to pass as a good fps these days. I guess the closest thing ill get to a good FPS anymore is Battlefield so here is hoping the 3rd is good.Also on topic here i prefer steams way of doing this. I know its not totally the same but, It's as far as i care to go with the idea. I sure wont pay for it no matter who does it. It doesn't add anything that hasn't been in a fps for many years anyways other then a GUI irc channel.. Even thats free![/citation]
i just watched a video of that game. it is a good shooter, but its not the best tactical shooter. i believe that it was rainbow 6, or something like that, were you could plan out where each squad mate goes, how long they should wait to continue, and so on. that was honestly the best tactical game, in the way that you could send a squad mate to the other side of a room, have them create a deversion, than come in the other side and pick people off. the best tactical shooters are behind us with not future game it seams.
now lets also look at the engine that you have a problem with. how much have fpses changed in the last... post halo?
besides graphics getting better, not much at all.
now i can deal with graphics staying how they are now better than most people, and i play on a pc.
[citation][nom]Benihana[/nom]At least with MMOs there is some justification in the monthly subscription cost. Running servers that can house 40k users simultaneously cannot be cheap. To run a regular MW3 server? Same cost as me running my web server.[/citation]
devils advocate here.
the servers for 1 world can house 2000-5000 people at once. now i dont know the makeup of the servers, but lets say 2000 people, 1 server, 15$ a month, that comes out to about 30000$ monthly.
now, how complex are these servers? thats the main thing, because that 30k isnt just the cost of running the server, you have to know that, and not every server has peak numbers 24/7
devils advocate here.
the servers for 1 world can house 2000-5000 people at once. now i dont know the makeup of the servers, but lets say 2000 people, 1 server, 15$ a month, that comes out to about 30000$ monthly.
now, how complex are these servers? thats the main thing, because that 30k isnt just the cost of running the server, you have to know that, and not every server has peak numbers 24/7
[citation][nom]fausto[/nom]my beef with this is that they are adding social stuff to the game and throwing in free dlc...pc used to get dlc for free all the time. ALSO THIS TECH IS OLD AND STALE, THE game is old and stale and the maps are too damn small.[/citation]
i prefer small maps apposed to a 1 mile big sparling area. if multi player supported the ammount of players to make those maps a viable option (64 players) than my opinion would be different.
i prefer small maps apposed to a 1 mile big sparling area. if multi player supported the ammount of players to make those maps a viable option (64 players) than my opinion would be different.
[citation][nom]fausto[/nom]booo! lame!same old tech, bunch of social stuff i don't care for. how about bigger maps and a better spawn system instead?[/citation]
You're asking them to fix the game??? are you crazy? they can't do that! their too inexperienced 😀 it costs too much to fix it. They'd rather do this to make more monies!! bwahahah I wont pay for this crap.
You're asking them to fix the game??? are you crazy? they can't do that! their too inexperienced 😀 it costs too much to fix it. They'd rather do this to make more monies!! bwahahah I wont pay for this crap.
[citation][nom]robwright[/nom]I have a strange feeling that if it was EA that introduced a paid service like this for B3, there'd be a much different public reaction from gamers. I'd bet I'd be reading comments like "BF3 FTW!!!" with people arguing that EA, unlike Activision, is actually innovating with its shooter franchise.In any case, I wonder if people reacted with this much hatred when publishers first introduced paid subscriptions with MMOs, or if this negative reaction is focused mostly on Activision and its CEO.[/citation]
I think most gamers have an almost equal hatred for EA. EA seems to be trying to clean up its public image lately, while Activision is taking on EA's old role. I boycotted EA's $10 "booster packs" for BF2. The CoD map packs are an even worse deal. I'm against any sort of overpriced nickel and diming.
I think most gamers have an almost equal hatred for EA. EA seems to be trying to clean up its public image lately, while Activision is taking on EA's old role. I boycotted EA's $10 "booster packs" for BF2. The CoD map packs are an even worse deal. I'm against any sort of overpriced nickel and diming.
ubercake
Splendid
- Oct 28, 2009
- 7,270
- 5
- 29,815
Yeah the COD series has been lame for a while, but what's gained it acceptance is the fact it runs at decent frame rates on low-mid range hardware. You can play it on your laptop and have a decent experience.
It's definitely doesn't come close to BFBC2, but it can run on a lot of machines. BFBC2 takes some serious hardware to get high frame rates. Don't get me wrong, I've played the BF series exclusively for almost a decade. It keeps getting better and better and more demanding on the hardware end.
I would go so far as to say COD is to FPSs on a PC what marketplace games are to apps on an iPod or Android machine. How many of your girlfriends are out there rocking angry birds on their iPhones? This kind of acceptance is the key to developers not having to push the envelope.
This Elite program is another mass-marketing tool such as Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. "The man" wants your information for free and they'll turn around and sell it for profit.
Perhaps the next COD will be the largest-selling side-scroller where finger swipes are the key to winning. If enough people keep buying this crap, we'll have to keep hearing about it and gaming will become finger swipes on a 3" screen.
Word.
It's definitely doesn't come close to BFBC2, but it can run on a lot of machines. BFBC2 takes some serious hardware to get high frame rates. Don't get me wrong, I've played the BF series exclusively for almost a decade. It keeps getting better and better and more demanding on the hardware end.
I would go so far as to say COD is to FPSs on a PC what marketplace games are to apps on an iPod or Android machine. How many of your girlfriends are out there rocking angry birds on their iPhones? This kind of acceptance is the key to developers not having to push the envelope.
This Elite program is another mass-marketing tool such as Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. "The man" wants your information for free and they'll turn around and sell it for profit.
Perhaps the next COD will be the largest-selling side-scroller where finger swipes are the key to winning. If enough people keep buying this crap, we'll have to keep hearing about it and gaming will become finger swipes on a 3" screen.
Word.
RipperjackAU
Distinguished
- Apr 12, 2006
- 260
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]dimamu15[/nom]Marcus Yam, I am afraid you messed up with sub title. It should have been:[citation]Activision's new plan of getting you to pay even more Call of Duty.[/citation][/citation]
Doh! You beat me to it. If you want to know how successful this will be, just have a look at Global Agenda... you know, that sci-fi FPS game that HAD to go F2P just to survive.
Doh! You beat me to it. If you want to know how successful this will be, just have a look at Global Agenda... you know, that sci-fi FPS game that HAD to go F2P just to survive.
jaghpanther
Distinguished
- Sep 23, 2010
- 150
- 0
- 18,710
I wince every time something is mentioned about MW. In my mind MW stands for MechWarrior, but then I'm old.
[citation][nom]RipperjackAU[/nom][/citation]Doh! You beat me to it. If you want to know how successful this will be, just have a look at Global Agenda... you know, that sci-fi FPS game that HAD to go F2P just to survive.[/citation]
couldn't be the fact that i never heard of the game and i am big into gaming sites.
mmofps games should be pay to play, as long as they are realy mmo, where 100vs100 matches can happen and people randomly "zone" in or however that works. if its a map with places that were capured (your team wone enough matches there) than no thats not mmo, thats not something you pay for.
[citation][nom]gnookergi[/nom]Haters gonna hate. Not like they have anything better to do with their lives.[/citation]
we dont want this crap to become the defacto norm. speak out or with your wallets.
[citation][nom]Maxor127[/nom]I think most gamers have an almost equal hatred for EA. EA seems to be trying to clean up its public image lately, while Activision is taking on EA's old role. I boycotted EA's $10 "booster packs" for BF2. The CoD map packs are an even worse deal. I'm against any sort of overpriced nickel and diming.[/citation]
ea killed its public image the moment masseffect got delayed because they want to retool the game to appeal to more people, they also lost it from me the moment they bought westwood and than fired everyone.
couldn't be the fact that i never heard of the game and i am big into gaming sites.
mmofps games should be pay to play, as long as they are realy mmo, where 100vs100 matches can happen and people randomly "zone" in or however that works. if its a map with places that were capured (your team wone enough matches there) than no thats not mmo, thats not something you pay for.
[citation][nom]gnookergi[/nom]Haters gonna hate. Not like they have anything better to do with their lives.[/citation]
we dont want this crap to become the defacto norm. speak out or with your wallets.
[citation][nom]Maxor127[/nom]I think most gamers have an almost equal hatred for EA. EA seems to be trying to clean up its public image lately, while Activision is taking on EA's old role. I boycotted EA's $10 "booster packs" for BF2. The CoD map packs are an even worse deal. I'm against any sort of overpriced nickel and diming.[/citation]
ea killed its public image the moment masseffect got delayed because they want to retool the game to appeal to more people, they also lost it from me the moment they bought westwood and than fired everyone.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - and the CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram