Home
With Call of Duty, I don't see any of that. People can say what they want, but I think the staff behind the franchise enjoys COD multiplayer for the same reasons its millions of customers do. I say they have another year or two of sticking to their current release trend before they can develop something like "Future Warfare" to revitalize the series. Multiplayer is everything, so the plot doesn't matter. If that were the case, World at War, Modern Warfare 2, and Black Ops would have failed miserably at retail. "Future Warfare" could free up some creative space that directly influences multiplayer mechanics, allowing for weapons and perks that may have been a bit too much of a stretch in a more modern setting. I'm not talking about lasers and spaceships, but stuff more along the lines of that Future Weapons show that details experimental technologies.
There's still plenty of room for the franchise to grow, and even when things look to be slowing up, they can move to a longer release schedule than the current annual one. The only stagnation going on are the wannabe developers coming out with first-person shooters that have no chance of competing with the top franchises (Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, etc.) and can't even fall into their own little niche of second tier games."
I think the people somehow upset that Call of Duty and franchises similar to it aren't "innovating" aren't really fans to begin with. You can't really argue with the incredible sales numbers the games put out. That's not to say its creators could eventually drive it into the ground, but I think they know what they're doing and aren't selfish and misgudied like the execs at Nintendo who can't see past their own egos and only make the games THEY want to play.
In short, it's ridiuculous to call the FPS genre stagnant and to point the finger at Call of Duty when the two are the biggest money-makers in the industry right now. I think anyone opposed to what Call of Duty is doing need to find out why they personally take issue with the series because they're the ones with the problem, not the games or the millions who buy them."
And I understand flying doesn't suit 3D Land's perspective and gameplay, but that's what made me curious enough to write this article. Why try to sell a game as something it's not and do such a shallow job of it? Seems to me Nintendo isn't so confident 3D Land will sell very well on its own merit."
If you choose to pass on MW3 because you know Activision will sell a handful of additional maps for a price after the game is released, then I have to question why it is you enjoy playing Call of Duty at all. These maps are just something extra, just another field to run around in and kill people in the event you got bored with the wide variety offered with the disc. It's not new weapons or perks or anything else that makes the people who pay better than the people who don't.
I defend the business because so few people who are passionate enough to discuss games online have any sense when it comes to the business aspect of the industry they claim to love. We argue that games that bomb are somehow good and failed because of poor marketing or "casual gamers" and that games that sell like crazy are boring and watering down the market despite their continued success. In this case, I'm defending Call of Duty DLC because I just can't understand how anyone can justify a claim that map packs that sell so well are somehow bad when all the evidence points to fans and developers alike agreeing they're a good thing. The customer is always right. If the customer decided this DLC was bad, Activision would eventually realize this and come up with a strategy that worked. So, again, I just can't understand all the venom for something that is so obviously well-received by all but a vocal minority."
And how is charging for something that used to be free some terrible thing and not just good business? Put yourself in the shoes of Treyarch and Activision. People are dying to play your new game the moment it comes out and are eager for new content in the form of multiplayer maps. Why, then, would you take the time and effort (aka money) to provide that additional content for free? If anyone is on the fence of buying the game because of this additional content, they are an extremely small minority that don't hold a candle to the amount of money the majority are willing to spend. You would be crazy to pass up the opportuinity to make that money, as would they.
As for watering down the market, Call of Duty is doing no such thing. It's the dozens of knock-offs and wannabe developers ignorantlyt trying to cash-in on Activision's thunder that are watering down their own games. Franchises like Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Halo are the lush, tropical islands in a boring sea of nothing. People like to pit the big franchises against one another, but at the end of the day, they're all really fun, really successful games that do what they do well. Annual Call of Duty and premium DLC isn't watering down the franchise. People are eager to pay for it and Activistion is happy to deliver.
You represent a vocal minority that, for some reason, isn't satisfied with content that hundreds of thousands of people are. I'm not sure why, though. I'm totally satisfied with Black Ops without the maps, and I've been playing since December. If I had a lot more disposable income, I'd probably have the maps, but they're obviously not essential to my having fun with the game.
So, what's the problem? What do you want out of the franchise, something other than what so many of us fell in love with in Call of Duty 4? Loads and loads of people are happily on board. We don't need radical departures or free DLC to be happy. Why do you?"
You act as if people are buying this content against their will, but you can't name any real problem with the business model other than the fact that you seemingly want the maps for free.
Seriously, how is this a problem? You claim people are upset that there is a lack of creativity in Black Ops. Who wants creativity? People want fun, and that's what CoD's multiplayer has been delivering to fans for years now. You can't deliver the huge number of customers Black Ops did just on name and marketing alone.
So, what's the problem? Are all of these customers pissed off, yet still playing for some reason? Are they just ignorant and stupid? I honestly can't understand what you're complaining about unless it's simply that you don't want to pay for the maps, and even then, I don't see why you can't just play without them. I do, and it's still great."
Where is the evidence of these overwhelmed, agitated, fed up people who are giving up on Call of Duty? The first few comments in every post on a game site about MW3? I see thousands and thousands of people playing online everyday. I seriously doubt they're doing so against their will or begrudgingly.
How is it a bad thing to offer additional content at a premium? They're not selling XP, or COD Points, or weapons or perks that fundamentally change the way people play the game leaving those who don't pay to suffer. And most important of all, they're not charging to play online in general. THAT would be the closest thing to whoring out the game in the worst possible way, but hundreds of thousands of people would still gladly pay for it if that were the only way to play this great game.
Treyarch and Activision are businesses. Why moan and complain when they act like one? What do you propose they do instead of provide people with the content they ask for and, God forbid, request some funds in return?"
If it's the former, I assure you there are tons and tons of people, like myself, playing without the maps. I love Black Ops but don't care to have new maps. The variety of the original set is great enough.
If it's the latter, just buy the maps already. People are devaluing games more and more these days thanks to free iOS and Android games that entertain us for two seconds before boring us to tears because we have such lowered standards without having to invest our hard-earned money into them. People should WANT to pay for content. If you don't in this situation, then I don't understand why you had to write an article about it."
