n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Jul 9, 2014 23:35:59 GMT -5
Just checked our funky 'directory' and that appears to be the case but I swear they do that clan stuff together. Last huge spat I saw between two people on here, well I don't think I have seen either post on here since. IW5000 has been in plenty of "spats" before with a multitude of people. Hell, this isn't even the first time Hawk and him have had at it. Hawk and IW5k are the only 2 people on this board that are willing to carry out a prolonged discussion of COD related things that aren't purely about mechanics.
|
|
n1gh7
True Bro
Black Market Dealer
Posts: 11,718
|
Post by n1gh7 on Jul 10, 2014 0:13:16 GMT -5
Pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 10, 2014 9:05:10 GMT -5
3. Are you stupid or did you just forget that this last release was during the new console I find this amusing, you calling me 'stupid' for forgetting the new consoles, when I have entire paragraph in this thread discussing that (see page 1) Would it be fair of me to call you 'stupid' for failing to read what was right in front of you? The same could be said about your point # 1. Try reading my post on the top of page 2, where I already stated what you said. You missed that, That's twice. You can apologize for that one too. Try reading what people say before insulting them. You other point, number # 2, that only a minority care about their KD. I will respectively disagree ( unlike you, who went right to insults at me) This is KD/kill driven game, NOT a win based game. I will respectively argue that with anyone who disagrees with me.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 10, 2014 9:37:37 GMT -5
Holy shit stop literally trying to scam everyone. We don't need 80+ dollars of Foxtroting microtrasactions on top of a 120 dollar Foxtroting game. If this game were free to play, feel free to whore out the Foxtroting micro dlc all you can. But guess what, it's Foxtroting not. It is the most obvious cash grab that the series has ever tried. What's next, selling Foxtroting better guns or something? The DLC maps are also a joke. All it accomplishes is splitting the playerbase into even smaller groups. You want to be uniting a game's community, not fragmenting it. Really not sure what your problem is with the micro-dlc. They added purely cosmetic features that you could pay for. They have no impact on the gameplay, aside from the pieces that make you stand out from the environment more (god, I hate when developers make games pay-to-lose). Don't even bother tossing out the phrase like "obvious cash grab", because the games you play are almost exclusively made by publicly traded companies, whose purpose of existence is to drive revenue. Be happy that the monetization doesn't actually ruin the game, like the way EA seems to with every franchise they get their hands on. The lack of unity between competitive and casual. The goal here is to get more people interested in the competitive scene. Make watching high level games easy. Make it easy to know when esport events are going on. Make the rules between all the game modes the exact same. Bridge the gap. Competitive play needs to be emphasized as the standard mode. List it first in match making. Make it so only max ranks can join the queue. Have multiple queues for solo and groups. Put emphasis on wins over KD. Casual matches should have separate stat tracking that is intentionally less prominent on your profile. This is all to show that competitive is what actually matters. Why should they promote the competitive scene? They don't own the companies that make revenue from it, and they have no control over the players at all. All they need to do is to invest enough to ensure that no other FPS becomes popular in the competitive scene, which could then trickle down to the masses. And as for making the rules the same, what's balanced isn't what's the most fun. Casual players need what's most fun. Competitive players need balance. Why would they balance the game for competitive players? Keep in mind, they don't control the competitive rules - are they supposed to hand over game design decisions to a third party? 3. Are you stupid or did you just forget that this last release was during the new console transition. Numbers per platform are all screwed up. That is just how it is. People are still debating what console to get and are waiting on friends to also choose a console. Things should settle down once we stop having to support the last gen consoles. Ghosts has sold well considering it would be the first in the series to launch on so many different platforms with such a massively fractured playerbase. No, he did mention that Ghosts came out during the console transition. Now, there are a few of things that he didn't mention any account of regarding the transition, but he did clearly factor in the console transition. The console transition fragmented the playerbase, meaning that a lot of people found their friends were no longer on the same console, which could lead to less players regularly engaging in multiplayer. For the first time in a number of years, there was another franchise the size of COD which has the same demographic - I don't think Advanced Warfare will have to compete against GTA6. There was also a next-gen upgrade program, which allowed you to buy a digital version of Ghosts for $10 for PS4/XBO with the purchase of the game for PS3/360. It's possible that players took advantage of this and then passed the last-gen copy to friends or put more copies on the used market, which would lower their overall sales. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any publicly released numbers for this.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 10, 2014 9:42:07 GMT -5
Holy shit stop literally trying to scam everyone. We don't need 80+ dollars of Foxtroting microtrasactions on top of a 120 dollar Foxtroting game. If this game were free to play, feel free to whore out the Foxtroting micro dlc all you can. But guess what, it's Foxtroting not. It is the most obvious cash grab . Another point aphoristic, YOu are going on the record calling my thoughts stupid and absurd (while not even correctly reading what i said), but then go on to list the above as one of the main core problems of the game? Micro transactions of all things? Something that doesn't even affect gameplay and is a voluntary choice to gamers, if they want to spend the $2 on a cosmetic addition to their gameplay,. Unbelievable.
|
|
wwaa
True Bro
PC / PS4 / X1
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by wwaa on Jul 10, 2014 9:55:25 GMT -5
My view on Ghosts: a failure as a cod:mp game, not because dev did not solve some problems, mentioned evough times on this board, but because dev reduced fun and effectiveness of most of exotic playestyles available in prev mps, game became boring...
Titanfall is not an option for me, as killing NPCs 95% of time goes exactly ag what cod:mp is about.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 10, 2014 9:55:39 GMT -5
All Call of Duty games, Map Packs and Microtransactions are 100% optional. You CHOOSE whether or not you spend money on. If you buy it do not complain it exists. If you complain it exists, do not buy it. If you think it is worth however much they charge, buy it. I'd you don't, don't.
I don't know why people who dislike microtransactions don't understand that.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 10, 2014 10:10:22 GMT -5
. No, he did mention that Ghosts came out during the console transition. Now, there are a few of things that he didn't mention any account of regarding the transition, but he did clearly factor in the console transition. The console transition fragmented the playerbase, meaning that a lot of people found their friends were no longer on the same console, which could lead to less players regularly engaging in multiplayer. For the first time in a number of years, there was another franchise the size of COD which has the same demographic - I don't think Advanced Warfare will have to compete against GTA6. There was also a next-gen upgrade program, which allowed you to buy a digital version of Ghosts for $10 for PS4/XBO with the purchase of the game for PS3/360. It's possible that players took advantage of this and then passed the last-gen copy to friends or put more copies on the used market, which would lower their overall sales. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any publicly released numbers for this. I feel I went to ridiculous lengths to explain my point regarding the above. I did it over a number off posts, that aphoristic clearly didn't read. To repeat ( I am not sure what is so alienating about these views I have below) VGChartz shows Mw3 selling 32 million units. This is CoD's high point. CoD Ghosts is tracking to be around 21 million. It is not going to sell as well, and will also fall well short of BO2. So in that respect, it failed. On page 1 I mentioned the 'fractured console market''. We all know that hurt sales this year. Activision predicted this in their corporate reports last year. It was coming. What we don't know is how much. Ghost's current 20 million include the ps4 and xb1 so it's not like the new consoles weren't include, but obviously some casual/hesitant buyers held off on Ghosts, How many? Could be anywhere from 1 to 8 million. I feel the true number falls on the smaller side. The trend was dropping with Bo2. I also posted some other info. I have my own tracked numbers from the MW3 clan war days, how many people were online with Mw3 most of the summer. I also can see how many people are online now with Ghosts, with both the 360 and xb1. The difference is more than the 1/3 drop in sales. So from my own anecdotal evidence, it would appear that people not only didn't buy Ghosts as much, but those that did, are playing it less than those Cod players two summers ago.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 10, 2014 10:17:52 GMT -5
My view on Ghosts: a failure as a cod:mp game, not because dev did not solve some problems, mentioned evough times on this board, but because dev reduced fun and effectiveness of most of exotic playestyles available in prev mps, game became boring... Titanfall is not an option for me, as killing NPCs 95% of time goes exactly ag what cod:mp is about. Just asking here, but does that bug you that much? Having the minions around to shoot? Your thoughts have a lot of company. I have heard a lot of people say this. But with myself, I am not to bothered by this element to the gameplay. Not sure why, but I am ok with this. I view it as just like destroying an opponent's cod kill streak.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 10, 2014 10:27:44 GMT -5
. No, he did mention that Ghosts came out during the console transition. Now, there are a few of things that he didn't mention any account of regarding the transition, but he did clearly factor in the console transition. The console transition fragmented the playerbase, meaning that a lot of people found their friends were no longer on the same console, which could lead to less players regularly engaging in multiplayer. For the first time in a number of years, there was another franchise the size of COD which has the same demographic - I don't think Advanced Warfare will have to compete against GTA6. There was also a next-gen upgrade program, which allowed you to buy a digital version of Ghosts for $10 for PS4/XBO with the purchase of the game for PS3/360. It's possible that players took advantage of this and then passed the last-gen copy to friends or put more copies on the used market, which would lower their overall sales. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any publicly released numbers for this. I feel I went to ridiculous lengths to explain my point regarding the above. I did it over a number off posts, that aphoristic clearly didn't read. To repeat ( I am not sure what is so alienating about these views I have below) VGChartz shows Mw3 selling 32 million units. This is CoD's high point. CoD Ghosts is tracking to be around 21 million. It is not going to sell as well, and will also fall well short of BO2. So in that respect, it failed. On page 1 I mentioned the 'fractured console market''. We all know that hurt sales this year. Activision predicted this in their corporate reports last year. It was coming. What we don't know is how much. Ghost's current 20 million include the ps4 and xb1 so it's not like the new consoles weren't include, but obviously some casual/hesitant buyers held off on Ghosts, How many? Could be anywhere from 1 to 8 million. I feel the true number falls on the smaller side. The trend was dropping with Bo2. I also posted some other info. I have my own tracked numbers from the MW3 clan war days, how many people were online with Mw3 most of the summer. I also can see how many people are online now with Ghosts, with both the 360 and xb1. The difference is more than the 1/3 drop in sales. So from my own anecdotal evidence, it would appear that people not only didn't buy Ghosts as much, but those that did, are playing it less than those Cod players two summers ago. I agree with most of what you said. I was just adding that there are factors that skew the data due to the console transition that make the data potentially misleading. And, just because the game did not reach same level as the previous title does not necessarily mean it was a failure, because the expectation was not that the title would reach those sales numbers. Whether or not Activision and/or Infinity Ward consider Ghosts a failure, I couldn't say. But Activision didn't have the expectation that Ghosts would reach BOII sales numbers.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 10, 2014 12:07:58 GMT -5
Yeah, there is a corporate Activision report floating around somewhere online that has Activision statements on what they expected. I can't find it now. It don't remember a number being specified, but perhaps a range of around 10% drop or so? They were expecting a drop. It's my uneducated opinion that they didn't expect it to be 20% or more. I'll add to that, with how they also went to great lengths to sort of play games with last fall's 24 hr and 1 week sales numbers. It appeared as if they were embarrassed/disappointed by them. Especially so, coming on the heels of GTA' v's massive opening. GTA V easily crusted Ghosts.
I suppose failure is a bad word. Nothing is truly failing when it still sells 20 million units. But if you view it from the standpoint that CoD has maybe lost 1/3 of its player base in two years, that's a scary signal. I don't think Activision envisioned that when talking about the game hitting it's mature part of its life cycle. I would think they were hoping more for flat growth, or slight decreases. And to get back on topic, one that should at a bare minimum have the higher ups at the franchise putting all options on the table when evaluating what the core issues are.
Edit... I am pretty sure I read the above while searching through Activision/Blizzard's 10k reports
Edit 2... Yes, found it in three reports. Can't copy and paste from my phone. Activision was calling for a drop this year, at least telling investors behind the scenes.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jul 10, 2014 16:48:50 GMT -5
Really not sure what your problem is with the micro-dlc. They added purely cosmetic features that you could pay for. They have no impact on the gameplay, aside from the pieces that make you stand out from the environment more (god, I hate when developers make games pay-to-lose). Don't even bother tossing out the phrase like "obvious cash grab", because the games you play are almost exclusively made by publicly traded companies, whose purpose of existence is to drive revenue. Be happy that the monetization doesn't actually ruin the game, like the way EA seems to with every franchise they get their hands on. Microtransactions have no place in full game releases. I paid the 120 dollars to get the full game, with the stupid season pass to get the dlc. Then they slap on another 80 dollars of content that I can't have. Just because most of the content is cosmetic (having 10 classes instead of 6 is an advantage), does not excuse it from being an obvious cash grab. The full game on steam currently costs 188.61 dollars. That is triple the price of the base game, and they aren't even done adding on more to it. Having the forced Season Pass to get the full game isn't even enough anymore, they want you to pay them a third time now.
|
|
wittyscorpion
True Brorange
All warfare is based on deception.
Posts: 8,598
|
Post by wittyscorpion on Jul 10, 2014 16:58:01 GMT -5
DLC/Micro-Transactions is not a CoD specific problem. Sadly, the game developers are now even going so far as saying that player community are "receptive" to these things.
Here is what UbiSoft has to say about this topic: hhttp://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/22956/article/downloadable-content-is-pretty-much-accepted-says-ubisoft-vp/
Full quote from the VP:
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on Jul 10, 2014 18:15:19 GMT -5
Micro DLC in COD is nothing compared to a lot of games. Also, TotalBiscuit brought this up with Forza 5.
I'm just surprised people were outraged by Forza 5 overuse of micro DLC when there was plenty of that involved with Forza Horizon. It is probably one reason why split screen isn't very common on racing games too - publishers/developers ar hoping people will buy their own copy to play against local friends they, you know, know in person.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 11, 2014 9:25:40 GMT -5
Really not sure what your problem is with the micro-dlc. They added purely cosmetic features that you could pay for. They have no impact on the gameplay, aside from the pieces that make you stand out from the environment more (god, I hate when developers make games pay-to-lose). Don't even bother tossing out the phrase like "obvious cash grab", because the games you play are almost exclusively made by publicly traded companies, whose purpose of existence is to drive revenue. Be happy that the monetization doesn't actually ruin the game, like the way EA seems to with every franchise they get their hands on. Microtransactions have no place in full game releases. I paid the 120 dollars to get the full game, with the stupid season pass to get the dlc. Then they slap on another 80 dollars of content that I can't have. Just because most of the content is cosmetic (having 10 classes instead of 6 is an advantage), does not excuse it from being an obvious cash grab. The full game on steam currently costs 188.61 dollars. That is triple the price of the base game, and they aren't even done adding on more to it. Having the forced Season Pass to get the full game isn't even enough anymore, they want you to pay them a third time now. Once again, this is content that in no way negatively impacts the game experience. Were it not for micro DLC, it would not exist. Why is there a problem with having the option to purchase content that would not otherwise exist, with no negative impact on the game regardless of whether you or anyone else chooses to purchase it? Also, you do realize that the microtransactions give them incentive to maintain and update the product, right? There's a reason BO2 is still getting security updates while COD4, WAW, and MW2 are hacked to high hell.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 11, 2014 9:33:10 GMT -5
I see TotalBiscuit's point, regarding DLC. I tend to agree with him. That was a good video and I didn't realize Forza did that. But Forza's DLC/Microtransaction problems are not comparable to what is going on with CoD. As far as I know (as I don't play the campaigns), there's no overall lengthening of the campaign mode to ridiculous lengths (making it impossible), so people get frustrated and buy the finish they want. That doesn't happen in CoD, does it?
It know doesn't happen in the multiplayer. There's no gaming advantage to getting micro stuff. Even the DLC guns weren't that good. As said before, just camos that made you stand out more. "Buy a bright florescent red gun camo, get shot easier"...cosmetic stuff. That doesn't help anyone play the game better. So there's no issue here with this.
|
|
wwaa
True Bro
PC / PS4 / X1
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by wwaa on Jul 11, 2014 9:48:44 GMT -5
Titanfall is not an option for me, as killing NPCs 95% of time goes exactly ag what cod:mp is about. Just asking here, but does that bug you that much? Having the minions around to shoot? Maps are huge, killing 3 pilots and 30 minions in 10 minutes while in cod it would be 33 'pilots' is less challenging, feels like 'combat training mode'. Titan vs titan battles last too long, so I usually do not bother to call my titan... Generally I do not know how to play TF to keep 'fun' level comparable to cod:mp.... Maybe adding 7th player, pro-bot, to Ghosts, who would be focused on playing the obj would solve some issues with DOM games where players prefer to complete individual challenges.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 11, 2014 10:12:49 GMT -5
Really not sure what your problem is with the micro-dlc. They added purely cosmetic features that you could pay for. They have no impact on the gameplay, aside from the pieces that make you stand out from the environment more (god, I hate when developers make games pay-to-lose). Don't even bother tossing out the phrase like "obvious cash grab", because the games you play are almost exclusively made by publicly traded companies, whose purpose of existence is to drive revenue. Be happy that the monetization doesn't actually ruin the game, like the way EA seems to with every franchise they get their hands on. Microtransactions have no place in full game releases. I paid the 120 dollars to get the full game, with the stupid season pass to get the dlc. Then they slap on another 80 dollars of content that I can't have. Just because most of the content is cosmetic (having 10 classes instead of 6 is an advantage), does not excuse it from being an obvious cash grab. The full game on steam currently costs 188.61 dollars. That is triple the price of the base game, and they aren't even done adding on more to it. Having the forced Season Pass to get the full game isn't even enough anymore, they want you to pay them a third time now. Buying CoD. 100% optional Buying a Season Pass. 100% optional Buying DLC that, in no way, affects gameplay. 100% optional. A season pass is not "forced" it was just offered because Map Packs went from 2-3 inconsistent to 4 guaranteed map packs in BO1 onward and give a discount of $10 ahead of times for those who were GOING TO BUY THE MAPS ANYWAY. You know why I didn't buy a Season Pass for Ghosts? I knew it'd be like MW3 and I'd end up quoting before 3rd and 4th dlc released. And I was right. So, ignoring the sales CoD has been having to try and get more people to buy the game, I saved $30 if I bought them all separately and $20 if I bought the season pass. Microtransactions are not forced either. All they do is add ooh pretty colors to the game. Now you say AH HA! But they gave 4 more create class options! What...5 months after the release? Seemed like by the time it came out you should have been used to 6. You also had up to 10 other characters whom you can switch between easily. But gun DLC! That was included in the two map packs and gives people who didn't buy the season pass or map packs a chance to use it. The only complaints I can see towards them is they were technically free (all dlc is $15 with or without a gun) if you bought the map pack and now they're charging like $4 or whatever. Now if CoD starts to make it so that unless you buy DLC you cannot actually play the game or whatever then we have a problem. Until then who cares if it's a cash grab? It's a business, of course it's a cash grab, every single product of for-profit companies are cash grabs. Your neighbor kid that makes a lemonade stand is a cash grab.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 11, 2014 10:17:49 GMT -5
Just asking here, but does that bug you that much? Having the minions around to shoot? Maps are huge, killing 3 pilots and 30 minions in 10 minutes while in cod it would be 33 'pilots' is less challenging, feels like 'combat training mode'. Titan vs titan battles last too long, so I usually do not bother to call my titan... Generally I do not know how to play TF to keep 'fun' level comparable to cod:mp.... Maybe adding 7th player, pro-bot, to Ghosts, who would be focused on playing the obj would solve some issues with DOM games where players prefer to complete individual challenges. Not downplaying your gripes. A lot of people say the above. I did. For myself, I kind of view the minions as like just a CoD killstreak you need to destroy. Destroy a sentry? Destroy a SATCOm Destroy a minion? Part of the game. Same difference. Over time, I have come to view the minions also as a tactical 'bait' device. They are like a moving chess piece that baits in other pilots to move in, ...either to kill them or kill the pilot waiting to use them as bait. Cat & mouse type of game. Looking back it, the minions are kind of an ingenious design move. It allows for huge/bigger maps, but the minions seems to keep the pace of action always focused. Forces conflict. Rewards movement, punishes tactical loitering/inactivity. That's the holy grail of FPS gaming design imho. At first the lack of pilot killing bugged me. I could get 18 'kills' in a 8 min CoD TDM game...versus only getting say 8 pilot kills in a 12 minute game. In my mind, less action meant less fun. But, over time I have come to just see the above as just a number. 8 isn't necessarily less than 18./ My prior thoughts weren't true. I was also doing Titan fun in those 12 minutes, plus the minions. Plus, I tend to move around A LOT more, wall jumping, climbing, chasing people. More times in one match than five CoD matches. Plus, my 12 minutes was filled with about 1/10th the "%&*#$-tactical loitering mother-fvcker-ahole" moments. With the titans, i was like you. But see Witty's/Dumien/Pegasus's threads on Titan play on this board. I went through almost two generations of Titan play without even realizing some basic gameplay elements with Titans. Helped quite a bit.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 11, 2014 10:21:15 GMT -5
the gun dlc is the only thing that technically qualifies as an unfair advantage. In CoD I can't say I give a shit since cod isnt a fair game, but I definitely agree with the principle. the two COD DLC guns are just novelty at best.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 11, 2014 10:28:17 GMT -5
In principle, yes it technically is unfair. But considering the alternative before was 'get map pack or don't have the gun' was even more unfair to those not willing to but the map packs it's a little more fair.
|
|
|
Post by iw5000 on Jul 11, 2014 10:40:52 GMT -5
I agree, in principle is it extremely unfair. I have money. You don't. I have a gun you can't access. This is ripe for abuse.
But for now, in CoD's case, this is not a core issue. It's not even any issue for that matter, as the DLC guns are novelty at best and just end up being yet another one (of many) that sit around and collect dust. One can only use so many guns per game, and most people ultimately end up only really using a half dozen all the time.
'If' it does go that way, it's going to be just reflecting reality. Look at professional sports. MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc..there really isn't a pure fair competitive scene to be found anywhere. Some team always has an edge with money or location, over an opponent. Even CoD Esports. The who pro team system is just one big pile of horse dung of unfairness, a rigged system to ensure the same six teams keep winning. All of that doesn't even start to get into the "$ for accessories" topic either. You got money? You can have a Scuff controller, better headset = better advantage over me. That's not fair, and that is already going on in great abundance.
Seeing how the above is going on all around us, even CoD's small tiny step towards this doesn't even get a notice from me. Aphoristic brought this up as a 'core issue', it's not. Not even close to one. There are bigger fish to fry.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jul 11, 2014 14:13:31 GMT -5
Microtransactions have no place in full game releases. I paid the 120 dollars to get the full game, with the stupid season pass to get the dlc. Then they slap on another 80 dollars of content that I can't have. Just because most of the content is cosmetic (having 10 classes instead of 6 is an advantage), does not excuse it from being an obvious cash grab. The full game on steam currently costs 188.61 dollars. That is triple the price of the base game, and they aren't even done adding on more to it. Having the forced Season Pass to get the full game isn't even enough anymore, they want you to pay them a third time now. Buying CoD. 100% optional Buying a Season Pass. 100% optional Buying DLC that, in no way, affects gameplay. 100% optional. A season pass is not "forced" it was just offered because Map Packs went from 2-3 inconsistent to 4 guaranteed map packs in BO1 onward and give a discount of $10 ahead of times for those who were GOING TO BUY THE MAPS ANYWAY. You know why I didn't buy a Season Pass for Ghosts? I knew it'd be like MW3 and I'd end up quoting before 3rd and 4th dlc released. And I was right. So, ignoring the sales CoD has been having to try and get more people to buy the game, I saved $30 if I bought them all separately and $20 if I bought the season pass. Microtransactions are not forced either. All they do is add ooh pretty colors to the game. Now you say AH HA! But they gave 4 more create class options! What...5 months after the release? Seemed like by the time it came out you should have been used to 6. You also had up to 10 other characters whom you can switch between easily. But gun DLC! That was included in the two map packs and gives people who didn't buy the season pass or map packs a chance to use it. The only complaints I can see towards them is they were technically free (all dlc is $15 with or without a gun) if you bought the map pack and now they're charging like $4 or whatever. Now if CoD starts to make it so that unless you buy DLC you cannot actually play the game or whatever then we have a problem. Until then who cares if it's a cash grab? It's a business, of course it's a cash grab, every single product of for-profit companies are cash grabs. Your neighbor kid that makes a lemonade stand is a cash grab. Season Pass is not optional unless you don't actually want the full game.
|
|
wittyscorpion
True Brorange
All warfare is based on deception.
Posts: 8,598
|
Post by wittyscorpion on Jul 11, 2014 14:39:51 GMT -5
On the topic of Season Pass (in general not just CoD): I have pretty much decided to never buy them again. Instead, I'll buy the individual DLCs separately, based on their quality.
Yes, the Season Pass can save me a few bucks, but only if I intended to buy all of them based on blind faith on a) their quality, b) the continued popularity of the game throughout the DLC releases. I no longer have such faith any more.
1) Game developers nowadays have a tendency to produce good DLCs for the first 1 or 2 releases (off topic, I also highly suspect that most if not all the content in the first DLC are pretty much done before the game launch, they decided to not include them in the initial release so they can get more money through DLC), then transition their development resources onto the "more important" projects and cause the subsequent ones to only have mediocre quality; 2) For MP games: as game releases become crowded, players' attention span on a single game tends to become shorter. As a result, the player population tend to drop dramatically after 6 months; 3) For Single Player games: there is simply no hurry. I can buy the first 1 or 2 while I am still playing the game a lot, and wait until the discounted time for the rest;
On the DLC issue in general: I also don't consider it as a core issue of CoD. CoD's future success or failure won't be affected much by the business practices in this area.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 11, 2014 15:44:01 GMT -5
Buying CoD. 100% optional Buying a Season Pass. 100% optional Buying DLC that, in no way, affects gameplay. 100% optional. A season pass is not "forced" it was just offered because Map Packs went from 2-3 inconsistent to 4 guaranteed map packs in BO1 onward and give a discount of $10 ahead of times for those who were GOING TO BUY THE MAPS ANYWAY. You know why I didn't buy a Season Pass for Ghosts? I knew it'd be like MW3 and I'd end up quoting before 3rd and 4th dlc released. And I was right. So, ignoring the sales CoD has been having to try and get more people to buy the game, I saved $30 if I bought them all separately and $20 if I bought the season pass. Microtransactions are not forced either. All they do is add ooh pretty colors to the game. Now you say AH HA! But they gave 4 more create class options! What...5 months after the release? Seemed like by the time it came out you should have been used to 6. You also had up to 10 other characters whom you can switch between easily. But gun DLC! That was included in the two map packs and gives people who didn't buy the season pass or map packs a chance to use it. The only complaints I can see towards them is they were technically free (all dlc is $15 with or without a gun) if you bought the map pack and now they're charging like $4 or whatever. Now if CoD starts to make it so that unless you buy DLC you cannot actually play the game or whatever then we have a problem. Until then who cares if it's a cash grab? It's a business, of course it's a cash grab, every single product of for-profit companies are cash grabs. Your neighbor kid that makes a lemonade stand is a cash grab. Season Pass is not optional unless you don't actually want the full game. Don't play dumb, you knew exactly what was included, and what wouldn't be, when you bought the game. You knew there would be microtransactions for customization packs not included in your $60 purchase. You knew that there were 15 maps included, and 16 maps not included. You weren't tricked, you got exactly what you were expecting. By the way, another way to think about it is that the DLC is just a form of price discrimination, which likely benefits both Activision and consumers.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 11, 2014 15:45:50 GMT -5
1) Game developers nowadays have a tendency to produce good DLCs for the first 1 or 2 releases (off topic, I also highly suspect that most if not all the content in the first DLC are pretty much done before the game launch, they decided to not include them in the initial release so they can get more money through DLC), then transition their development resources onto the "more important" projects and cause the subsequent ones to only have mediocre quality; Well, COD bucks the trend here. The DLC is always uniformly mediocre.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 11, 2014 15:51:01 GMT -5
I don't know. I loved almost all the zombie map DLCs in all of the 3arc games. Shi No Numa and Shangri La were mediocre in my opinion. But I thought it was well worth it for how many hours I put in Zombies
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on Jul 11, 2014 16:16:57 GMT -5
Sorry, I was really just referring to the MP maps.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Jul 11, 2014 20:22:01 GMT -5
Season Pass is not optional unless you don't actually want the full game. Don't play dumb, you knew exactly what was included, and what wouldn't be, when you bought the game. You knew there would be microtransactions for customization packs not included in your $60 purchase. You knew that there were 15 maps included, and 16 maps not included. You weren't tricked, you got exactly what you were expecting. By the way, another way to think about it is that the DLC is just a form of price discrimination, which likely benefits both Activision and consumers. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the full game costs 120 dollars because the season pass isn't optional unless you want only half the game. That's not even including the microdlc being shoved in the face of players at every chance now.
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Jul 12, 2014 8:23:27 GMT -5
I stop playing when the first map pack hits. At that point I've been playing several months, have hit max prestige with a boatload of gold guns, and there's really nothing having more maps is going to offer me. To me, what I played was the "full game." And then I get back 75% of the original price paid by selling the game on eBay. If someone wants to dump more money into the game, that's their choice. It's not being forced upon them, and it's not an "issue" with the series.
|
|