The state of Cod

[cyberninja2601 1,106]

31 minutes ago, TigerBurge said:

All but the Coop stuff is part of the free to play model. I have the same issue as Gary about the FTP vs the purchased game. They need to be separate. They shouldn’t use the purchased game to fund the free to play version of it. I get why they do it. Here’s WZ for free but if you want to level your guns faster and have more of an advantage in WZ you can do it quicker in multiplayer. I also don’t understand you defending Activision. Like most AAA companies all they care about is money. Look at how EA has basically destroyed Battlefield. Activision only cares about $$$. I understand it’s there to make money and they have shareholders to answer to but you have to also listen to the player base if not then ultimately they will stop spending money that they cherish so much. 

 

Well the created a game which actually is doing better than ever and quite frankly most people seem to like otherwise they wouldn't be making the boatload of money they are making

 

yes the care about the money. Microsoft cares about the money. Google cares about the money. Goodyear cares about the money. Intel cares about the money. Even charities care about the money.  That's the fiduciary obligation. Given the beat all sorts of records, mission accomplished

 

However people have bitched for at least 10 years that COD was same old/same old and needed innovation. 

 

So they went off and did Warzone (which copies other battle royals but did it), the did Co-op mode (which is in the paid version), they added raids (which complements Co-op), they did DMZ, the did a MP and they did a campaign.  Then said they would add maps for the next 2 years. 

 

Everyone bitching about the number of maps, seem to be the people who only played 1 map 24/7 so I fail to understand why the number of maps is the issue. If there was 16 maps, people probably still would have played shipment all the time. 

 

I can also see why content creators bitch. SBMM makes it hard for them, so no flashy videos. DMZ/Warzone/co-op is actually a lot of fun to play. It must be boring as hell to watch. So they aren't getting their view and they aren't getting the money (but activision is and so the bitch about the game). 

 

I paid $69 for something I put I don't know how many hours into. But I am willing to bet it's more that 69. So at about $1/hr I feel I got my moneys worth. 

 

 

[TigerBurge 2,375]

2 hours ago, cyberninja2601 said:

 

Well the created a game which actually is doing better than ever and quite frankly most people seem to like otherwise they wouldn't be making the boatload of money they are making

 

yes the care about the money. Microsoft cares about the money. Google cares about the money. Goodyear cares about the money. Intel cares about the money. Even charities care about the money.  That's the fiduciary obligation. Given the beat all sorts of records, mission accomplished

 

However people have bitched for at least 10 years that COD was same old/same old and needed innovation. 

 

So they went off and did Warzone (which copies other battle royals but did it), the did Co-op mode (which is in the paid version), they added raids (which complements Co-op), they did DMZ, the did a MP and they did a campaign.  Then said they would add maps for the next 2 years. 

 

Everyone bitching about the number of maps, seem to be the people who only played 1 map 24/7 so I fail to understand why the number of maps is the issue. If there was 16 maps, people probably still would have played shipment all the time. 

 

I can also see why content creators bitch. SBMM makes it hard for them, so no flashy videos. DMZ/Warzone/co-op is actually a lot of fun to play. It must be boring as hell to watch. So they aren't getting their view and they aren't getting the money (but activision is and so the bitch about the game). 

 

I paid $69 for something I put I don't know how many hours into. But I am willing to bet it's more that 69. So at about $1/hr I feel I got my moneys worth. 

 

 

I seriously don’t think you understand our complaints. The game in my opinion and many more should be separate. They should not support each other. Hell IW isn’t the one that’s controlling War Zone. That’s Raven software. There has been very little content that has been added to the MULTIPLAYER side of the game. MULTIPLAYER is what drives the game. MULTIPLAYER is what has the cash flow. Yet there has been two maps added to the game since release. Two maps that were in the last MW game. Nothing new. Where they have added more stuff into FREE TO PLAY than the base game that we spent money on. I understand what you are saying however I don’t think you see my point. 
 

 

And as far as return on investment I’m almost certain I have more time spent on this game than probably anyone on this forum. That has absolutely nothing to do with my complaints. It’s not me hating on the game. I’ve spent more time on it that the last two combined. What @techno  is saying has to do with the multiplayer part of the game. He’s not complaining about anything else. Nor am I. Haven’t played any of the other stuff. Don’t plan on it. 

[J4MES OX4D 10,033]

There is a reasonable amount of content as a whole but not really for core MP and that’s what a lot of people play. Vanguard launched with 20 original maps whereas MW2 launched with about 8 and both ‘new’ maps are just rehashes. It just isn’t enough for many people if you’re only looking to play the core multiplayer portion. If you dislike a few maps then you may end up hating about 30% of them which further diminishes the enjoyment. As this content is free, they aren’t going to give much away or dedicate a huge amount of time on it because it doesn’t provide a determined return so just like MW2019, they will drip feed a few maps here and there and then we’ll see the premium £60 DLC next year which will probably have another 8 maps or so. If it was paid map packs like before, it would be a different story though as there would be an incentive in place.  
 

The big problem is the consistency and communication from the devs - it’s absolutely shite from IW and I don’t think they have a clear forwarding strategy on what to do next. Fortnite developers put this lot to absolute shame as no matter how dead that game comes, they can still grow it out of nowhere with beautifully constructed updates that have been planned very carefully. IW just wing it and they only have the MP to worry about - Raven and Treyarch handle everything else right now and then Sledgehammer are making the expansion for next year. 
 

I’m currently playing Plutonium and that has about 60 maps so I can’t see myself going back to MW2 anytime soon. A COD game needs and deserves about 16 original maps at launch and this should be the expectation. 7, 9 and 10 just isn’t enough and one new map every 6 weeks is a dismal return especially if it’s recycled content.

[techno 3,510]

9 hours ago, cyberninja2601 said:

 

 

Everyone bitching about the number of maps, seem to be the people who only played 1 map 24/7 so I fail to understand why the number of maps is the issue. If there was 16 maps, people probably still would have played shipment all the time. 

 

I can also see why content creators bitch. SBMM makes it hard for them, so no flashy videos. DMZ/Warzone/co-op is actually a lot of fun to play. It must be boring as hell to watch. So they aren't getting their view and they aren't getting the money (but activision is and so the bitch about the game). 

 

I paid $69 for something I put I don't know how many hours into. But I am willing to bet it's more that 69. So at about $1/hr I feel I got my moneys worth. 

 

 

Everyone bitching about number of maps and only playing 1 as far as I can see everyone is me🤣 The four maps thunder mentioned I won't play and as much as don't mind a few of the original ones it's just easier and for the most part more enjoyable and fun having the chaos of shipment. 

 

Also you can't see why content creators bitch about sbmm because as thunder says it takes him so long to get a game yet he still wins quite a few and gets plenty of content and that's just one reason why strict sbmm sucks.  It's not just cod either True vanguard had some excellent videos about the same topic when it was added to quick play in destiny.

Also like @TigerBurge if I never touched the game again I'd have had way more than my monies worth and I've completed the season pass. 

Chris was also on the money talking about the lack of information etc coming from infinity ward. Blame truth used to call Ashton Williams a mime but compared to now it's almost like she never shut up😉

[Luseth 1,948]

9 hours ago, TigerBurge said:

I seriously don’t think you understand our complaints. The game in my opinion and many more should be separate. They should not support each other. Hell IW isn’t the one that’s controlling War Zone. That’s Raven software. There has been very little content that has been added to the MULTIPLAYER side of the game. MULTIPLAYER is what drives the game. MULTIPLAYER is what has the cash flow. Yet there has been two maps added to the game since release. Two maps that were in the last MW game. Nothing new. Where they have added more stuff into FREE TO PLAY than the base game that we spent money on. I understand what you are saying however I don’t think you see my point.

 

Are you sure multiplayer is the aspect that is driving the game? I don't believe they have ever divulged the amount of money that comes from sales of the multiplayer verse the sales of warzone for example. In fact I would not be surprised if warzone generates them just as much money if not more these day's with the microtransactions. The introduction of the football players as characters for example, I imagine they have sold a tonne more than the regular multiplayer players.

 

In fact I read a statement at one point that Warzone was generating 5 million dollars a day at one point, so it may not necassarily make quite as much money as the multiplayer (it can't be far off) you also have to recognize there is a lot more profit to be made with one map that you tweak every now and again compared with a multiplayer game where fans are expecting new maps regularly and such.

 

As far as a business perspective goes it makes sense that Activision is becoming less bothered about Call of Duty, it's what EA have been trying to do with battlefield but they had never gotten the live service part right first before beginning to dismantle the main multiplayer game (or let it rot).

[MrBiron 1,453]

13 hours ago, TigerBurge said:

I can’t watch Thunders videos more. That dude would bitch about a blow job. He has been complaining about CoD games since MW2 and that’s all he does.

 

Totally agree. Thunder is like a stuck record now.

 

The problem with COD is that if you only play 6v6 then there is a lack of maps because of the live service model. At least when you had to buy map packs then you knew that you'd get a decent amount of maps every few months.

 

If you venture outside of 6v6 then there is plenty of do. The only downside being that you generally need to be in a squad (I still have a Raid key as I haven't played it yet).

[J4MES OX4D 10,033]

3 hours ago, Luseth said:

 

Are you sure multiplayer is the aspect that is driving the game? I don't believe they have ever divulged the amount of money that comes from sales of the multiplayer verse the sales of warzone for example. In fact I would not be surprised if warzone generates them just as much money if not more these day's with the microtransactions. The introduction of the football players as characters for example, I imagine they have sold a tonne more than the regular multiplayer players.

Warzone makes up about 90% of their post-release revenue from weighing up a few articles.  In the original Warzone, they used to make in two months on cosmetics what they'd receive in unit sales total; of the entire standalone COD game.  I think they deliberately starve or withhold content for the MP portion so they don't detract users away from Warzone especially in the early days. Player counts mean nothing now - it's all about the average user spend and that is inflated significantly in the BR mode.  Once Warzone peaks and settles then it's a careful balancing act on content with the MP mode so they keep both happy without either losing players altogether or driving people away from Warzone. Treyarch really came out of the woodwork last year because people were not only abandoning Caldera but also Cold War so they continued supporting that along with Rebirth Island.  The player counts are hidden and have been for a long time and the Steam API data is merged so it's hard to determine who plays what but based on the daily player counts previously announced for Warzone spanning tens of millions per day, the MP aspect is definitely nowhere close and probably less than what it was a decade ago.  

[cyberninja2601 1,106]

6 hours ago, techno said:

Everyone bitching about number of maps and only playing 1 as far as I can see everyone is me🤣 The four maps thunder mentioned I won't play and as much as don't mind a few of the original ones it's just easier and for the most part more enjoyable and fun having the chaos of shipment. 

 

 

 

You are up there but not alone

 

13 hours ago, TigerBurge said:

I seriously don’t think you understand our complaints. The game in my opinion and many more should be separate. They should not support each other. Hell IW isn’t the one that’s controlling War Zone. That’s Raven software. There has been very little content that has been added to the MULTIPLAYER side of the game.

 

I understand your complaint. However I don't agree with your perception of what COD is. What you are both complaining about is MP. Not COD. COD has been repackaged into MP, Co-op, WZ, DMZ.  When go on the WWII site, I believe they make that quite clear. What purchase is MP, co-op and campaign. Those make your life easier if you play DMZ, Raid, WZ because you can level up you shit much quicker or you can chose to play that aspect.  But they aren't dependent on each other

 

What I believe people need to accept is that COD is not the product it use to be and the free content probably has more weight than that $69 content.  The publisher will invest where the money is

 

As for Raven/IW they don't make the decision. Activision does.  Raven is even an Activision company

 

 

4 hours ago, Luseth said:

 

Are you sure multiplayer is the aspect that is driving the game? I don't believe they have ever divulged the amount of money that comes from sales of the multiplayer verse the sales of warzone for example. In fact I would not be surprised if warzone generates them just as much money if not more these day's with the microtransactions. 

 

That is true. If you look at their shareholder reports

 

Their purchase games generate $900M (which is all of them)  their subscriptions at $4.2B  I believe. More than 4x. Why do you all think that Overwatch and destiny went free to play

 

COD mobile generated $1.7B since release

 

WZ I believe generated $800M in downloadable content in 2021. I didn't see anything for 2022 and Q4 just ended so that information should be available in the next few weeks

 

 

50 minutes ago, J4MES OX4D said:

Warzone makes up about 90% of their post-release revenue from weighing up a few articles.  In the original Warzone, they used to make in two months on cosmetics what they'd receive in unit sales total; of the entire standalone COD game.  I think they deliberately starve or withhold content for the MP portion so they don't detract users away from Warzone especially in the early days.

 

That aligns a lot with what I am saying. I don't believe however they deliberately starve. They just have a limited number of developers and they invest in what generates the money. All tech companies do. It's also a lot easier to generate a black skin with a red LA on it that a decent map. That skin gets you $24. Pretty easy money.

 

I don't remember how many maps the last blackops had. But it seemed like people always voted for the same ones,  so I never played a number of them. All that to say that you know dam well that if Shipment, Nuketown,  Range, Rust come up, that's what you are going to be playing so it really doesn't matter how much they add because people always go back to the same thing. 

 

 

 

[GazzaGarratt 11,049]

16 hours ago, TigerBurge said:

All but the Coop stuff is part of the free to play model. I have the same issue as Gary about the FTP vs the purchased game.

 

Ah good point. For some reason forgot about that. However, the campaign is always something quite large for people to play and can sometimes be the only content in a game. And it was very good if you asked me, campaigns can be non-realistic at times cos thats what games are for, to see things you only expect in fantasy land, etc.

 

I don't think Pat @cyberninja2601  is defending them though, hes just saying a response to what the OP said regarding content which in his eyes, there is more than what those videos explained. 'Is it enough?' maybe is the right question? I think then you fall back on other stuff that matters to gamers like what is value for money, etc. Do I think this CoD was worth the money? Absolutely. Could it do with more maps and a few extra gamemodes? Absolutely.

 

Its not praising Activision, but we should be able to talk about the positive things when a game has really landed well and say I haven't lost out money wise by buying this game. If it helps from a negative viewpoint if we wanted to talk in that way, I'd say that its very telling that Activision have took nearly 10 years to make one decent CoD game, which isn't great at all really is it.

 

[J4MES OX4D 10,033]

1 hour ago, cyberninja2601 said:

That aligns a lot with what I am saying. I don't believe however they deliberately starve. They just have a limited number of developers and they invest in what generates the money. All tech companies do. It's also a lot easier to generate a black skin with a red LA on it that a decent map. That skin gets you $24. Pretty easy money.

They had over 3000 developers working on this game and whilst they are allocated to many portions of it and its vastly varied internal departments, I do believe they have more than enough to provide decent post-launch support. I just think Activision withhold content in a tactical fashion to get the best financial return. The MW2 Campaign Remastered was apparently sitting in limbo finished for two years before they finally released it because of the sudden groundbreaking success of Warzone and they didn't want that interrupted in any way with echoes of a fully-fledged remaster. I have a feeling the same thing is happening here because when Warzone is thriving, they don't want people moving away especially into the far less lucrative MP. That being said, I am personally disappointed with IW's relationship with the community and their overall performance regardless of any input Activision have. Treyarch have also gone the same way in recent years with an over-reliance on recycled content and general laziness from a user standpoint. Compare this approach to what Epic do and it's just a night and day difference in keeping the community engaged and happy. This is something Activison need to learn from. No Call of Duty has actually grown post-launch since probably Black Ops 2 and too many titles in the last decade have been on life support come January. 

 

The way Activision have moved staff around and allocated work in recent years hasn't helped either. Development on games has been muddled as hell even after they moved to a 3 studio format. It's absolutely nuts that Raven do Warzone, Treyarch run the DMZ and SHG will handle the MW2 Premium Expansion. 

[techno 3,510]

 @GazzaGarratt  I think it's got away from the OP a bit also both eight thoughts and thunder and everyone else know that warzone generates money along with the well stocked and updated shop, shop probably gets more content than any other aspect of the game.

 

Seems from replies that people generally agree that the paid part of the game is been overlooked in favour of warzone, not sure even DMZ has had any more updates? 

 

Lee you say Activision took 10 years are you critisizing previous call of dutys? Didn't you like mw19? Surely you can't critisize previous cod's as they sold massively and we're liked by many😉 😁 Im sure in previous years some of us would probably find ourselves on the opposite side of the fence. One thing is certain it seems were all getting enough value out of the game one way or another.

 

May as well add this as he talks about warzone. On the Mp side I didn't see they'd just rotate shoothouse in I was expecting shoot the ship.🤷

 

 

 

[GazzaGarratt 11,049]

46 minutes ago, techno said:

Lee you say Activision took 10 years are you critisizing previous call of dutys? Didn't you like mw19? Surely you can't critisize previous cod's as they sold massively and we're liked by many😉 😁

 

In my opinion none of them are of the same calibre as the one we have today. I think my criticism to help Chris' point from a negative view (which i never like talking in but hey ho) is that the quality of the CoD games have been very poor, including their content over the past 7-8 years....although BO3 had quality just not much content. It has nothing to do with how many have been sold because thats a different story as you say.

 

Sticking to the OP which is all about content and good content this is what my response was bringing it back to. In isolation, the game hasn't got tons of content, but it has enough for me which in turn is linked to value for money statement. I think we can say we want more content (maps for sure) but what we have so far for 2 months is a pretty damn good game with good content. IMO of course 😘

 

 

[J4MES OX4D 10,033]

1 hour ago, techno said:

Seems from replies that people generally agree that the paid part of the game is been overlooked in favour of warzone, not sure even DMZ has had any more updates? 

DMZ is still in beta but everything has been fairly quiet since launch. The tragedy with this mode is that it is probably more successful than they envisioned (player counts) which means they may not have a decent strategy or vision in place to see it continually develop. They likely saw the utterly miserable reception Battlefield Hazard Zone got and took their foot of the gas with this concept which is why it launched incomplete and lacking in many ways. They weren't very enthusiastic about it during its reveal event either which really rubbed off even on the content creators showcasing it. Hopefully they'll start making strides but I fear Acitvision wont want it heavily focused unless they can monetise aspects of it - I've always said that mode-exclusive bundles will probably happen for this at some stage if it maintains interest and that's what will keep Activision happy. It's a decent sandbox and more relaxed alternative to the highly criticised and corrupt Warzone 2. 

 

The real tragedy about brands like this and FIFA now is that even if you pay £60 for the game and put in 1000 hours, you aren't worth shit. Yet some dipshit paying £20 on microtransactions a month is way for valuable to these companies. 

[cyberninja2601 1,106]

30 minutes ago, J4MES OX4D said:

DMZ is still in beta but everything has been fairly quiet since launch. The tragedy with this mode is that it is probably more successful than they envisioned (player counts) which means they may not have a decent strategy or vision in place to see it continually develop. They likely saw the utterly miserable reception Battlefield Hazard Zone got and took their foot of the gas with this concept which is why it launched incomplete and lacking in many ways. They weren't very enthusiastic about it during its reveal event either which really rubbed off even on the content creators showcasing it. Hopefully they'll start making strides but I fear Acitvision wont want it heavily focused unless they can monetise aspects of it - I've always said that mode-exclusive bundles will probably happen for this at some stage if it maintains interest and that's what will keep Activision happy. It's a decent sandbox and more relaxed alternative to the highly criticised and corrupt Warzone 2. 

 

The real tragedy about brands like this and FIFA now is that even if you pay £60 for the game and put in 1000 hours, you aren't worth shit. Yet some dipshit paying £20 on microtransactions a month is way for valuable to these companies. 

 

 

DMZ came out with Building 21 which is a harder mission and different Area. The loot is different but not essential. 

 

There are 5 tiers of missions for the 5 factions. I think a content provide has just recently completed them all with his Squad. That aspect is more of challenge if that is what you want to do.

 

I'm at tier 3 at this point and I don't think I've played MP in 3 weeks. It takes me no time at all to get a lobby so I can only assume that people are playing.

 

 

 

 

[Diddums 4,346]

Sounds like I need to play all the modes so I can tell all of you that you're wrong. 

 

 

[cyberninja2601 1,106]

1 hour ago, Diddums said:

Sounds like I need to play all the modes so I can tell all of you that you're wrong. 

 

 

 

I guess you try when you no longer get banned for being mean to 13 year olds 😉

 

 

[Diddums 4,346]

15 hours ago, cyberninja2601 said:

 

I guess you try when you no longer get banned for being mean to 13 year olds 😉

 

 

 

It's an 18+ game, what the hell are 13 year olds doing playing it? 

 

This is why we have such a violent culture, 13 year olds playing corrodoory.

[TigerBurge 2,375]

51 minutes ago, Diddums said:

 

It's an 18+ game, what the hell are 13 year olds doing playing it? 

 

This is why we have such a violent culture, 13 year olds playing corrodoory.

I hope you’re joking. 

[cyberninja2601 1,106]

53 minutes ago, TigerBurge said:

I hope you’re joking. 

 

 

If only.  How does a 6 year old learn to bring a loaded gun to school and shoot the teacher.

 

 

[cyberninja2601 1,106]

1 hour ago, Diddums said:

 

It's an 18+ game, what the hell are 13 year olds doing playing it? 

 

This is why we have such a violent culture, 13 year olds playing corrodoory.

 

 

Well played (it's actually 17+ in the USA). 

 

 

[TigerBurge 2,375]

1 hour ago, cyberninja2601 said:

 

 

If only.  How does a 6 year old learn to bring a loaded gun to school and shoot the teacher.

 

 

How is it that a week earlier the same six year old brought bullets to school and told them he was going to bring a gun and nothing was done about it. Don’t be sheep 

[Diddums 4,346]

2 hours ago, TigerBurge said:

I hope you’re joking. 

 

We need to spend more time together princess, we're drifting apart ❤️

[TigerBurge 2,375]

8 minutes ago, Diddums said:

 

We need to spend more time together princess, we're drifting apart ❤️

I don’t disagree there. However you never know these days. People change about as much as they do their underwear 

[GazzaGarratt 11,049]

Stick to the OP please (reminding myself at the same time based on my early replies and Gary @techno  trying his hardest to do the same lol 😅).

 

I think Season 2 info, which I can't see why we wouldn't get something in the next few weeks given Season 1 finishes around then, should help us see how much content is likely to drop regularly into MP. I'm waiting patiently and also not going to hype it up as we know how previous CoDs have gone. As the talk about this one was supposed to be the only CoD this year is still not guaranteed, I think its okay to sit on the fence until we hear more info about content drops.

 

I'm hoping for one brand new map at least next Season, alongside 2 older maps coming in - considering the Warzone large map clearly has another 2-3 old maps already situated on it. The map rotation isn't getting stale just yet for me though, but it won't be long I'm sure. I'll probably switch to more DMZ at that time.

[Diddums 4,346]

8 minutes ago, GazzaGarratt said:

Stick to the OP please

 

You're so sexy when you're angry, grrrrr