Comments (33)
jeseth  +   1158d ago
Man. That is just insane!
shutUpAndTakeMyMoney  +   1158d ago
and yet It can't get a lot of 90 score form reviewers of customer reviews.
#1.1 (Edited 1158d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
LUCKYXS7LEVEN  +   1157d ago
and it can't give the players dedicated servers
Garethvk  +   1158d ago
Hence why we get a new game every year. Each one seems to do better than the previous one since World at War and as such the studio is going to ride the cash cow. I have enjoyed the fact that they tried new things with this one and tweaked the graphics. I would be curious to see a new engine and what it could do, but I understand that they do not have the luxury to take a few years off at this point to do that.
Swiggins  +   1158d ago
Unfortunately we probably won't get a new engine until the next console cycle.
taquito  +   1158d ago
ps3 and 360 barely run this engine, it looks awful on console, doesn't maintain 60 frames at all and is 880x720 native res with jaggies

what engine could they do and what would be the point? consoles cannot even run this engine properly

we needed new consoles in 2010, sh!ts been going on for 8 years now, WAY too long for a console cycle

game looks freaking epic on pc btw, 1600p, 8x aa, dx11, makes uncharted 3 look like a psp game
#2.1.1 (Edited 1158d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(7) | Report
ufo8mycat  +   1158d ago
taquito - the problem isn't the graphics its the gameplay.
The engine is poorly optimised. Proof of that is the PC version, which barely looks much better then the 360 version and thats a fact, so no need to spout crap and be mad because of the fact that 99% of pc games don't look that much better due to being ports.

I new engine with better graphics isn't going to fix this awful game if the gameplay stays the same.

But why would Activision do that? They spend less money by NOT making a new engine and 10m+ people will buy it anyway.

And as for 1600p, unless you are playing this on a 100"+ HDTV, thats just a waste of pixels.
csreynolds  +   1158d ago
Mmmmm, one billion dollars in just over two weeks. Kind of throws the "we can't afford to fund dedicated servers to improve gamers' online experience" argument out of the window, doesn't it?

*raises eyebrow*
FlameBaitGod  +   1158d ago
They are just super cheap man.
csreynolds  +   1158d ago
Precisely, which is why I have gone back to Battlefield 3 and vowed never to buy another Call of Duty game.
LOGICWINS  +   1158d ago
They aren't super cheap, rather they're super smart. Why fund dedicated servers when the same people who complain about the lack of them STILL buy your game every year?
Detoxx  +   1158d ago
Im with you
Ducky  +   1158d ago
Actually, sales don't do much to support/counter their argument.

1 billion in sales means they've sold a lot of games, and that means they have a lot of players. To have servers to accommodate those players, they'd need a lot of servers. Those servers will cost a lot of money.

Thus, the cost of the servers increases with the amount of copies sold. So really, nothing changes.

With such large numbers, estimating the amount of servers needed is also tricky. It's also worth pointing out that the publishers which do provide DedicatedServers often have OnlinePasses as well. So you have to sacrifice a bit of freedom if you want dedicated servers.
#3.3 (Edited 1158d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
csreynolds  +   1157d ago
Good point. That said, DICE host servers for Battlefield 3, and I would imagine they've generated nowhere near as many sales as the Call of Duty series overall. Yes, they do support the Online Pass business model, but a few pounds extra for a more stable, moderated, well-supported online experience is not a big sacrifice to make IMO...
Sizzon  +   1158d ago
Holy moly
momthemeatloaf  +   1158d ago
Proves that this gen is lacking variety.
MiyagiSPG  +   1158d ago
Or Gamers who lack trying something new.
Lvl_up_gamer  +   1158d ago
Or despite what the Interwebz think, Call of Duty is actually a good game that people like to play.
Garethvk  +   1158d ago
The thing is it is not just kids on consoles who play it. I heard from a 71 year old the other day. He has very limited computer skills but he has been a fan of the series even though he needs help loading the game. He said his family starts the game and he takes over. They have the range from 11-75 who play this and they have done a great job making it a event when a new one comes out that people flock to. I tried to get into Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor: Warfighter but the games for the PC were loaded with bugs when they first launched. This is why sequels do so well, people know what to expect and at this point, there is a comfort level that draws both casual and hardcore gamers.
csreynolds  +   1157d ago
I will agree with you; EA cocked up big time with Battlefield 3. They rushed release, forcing DICE to launch an unfinished product, and it showed. Multiplayer was an utter mess. There's a 'but' though...

Playing Battlefield 3 now, I feel it's at a standard few FPSs can match in terms of gameplay, enjoyability and, most notably, team play. Granted, it requires a little more thought if you want to do well (the learning curve can be steep depending on your skill level), but it really pays off.

The beef I have with Call of Duty is the developers' unwillingness to improve online performance. Every year gamers have to put up with crappy netcode, and more recently an incredibly flawed lag compensation system, but no matter how much money we spend with them nothing changes.

DICE however have made huge improvements to both servers and gameplay in the last year (let's face it, they've had to considering how much they've been flogging Premium). I don't lag, I don't 'rubberband', people die when I shoot them - which is kind of important - the community 'gets' what an objective is... it feels like the superior game now. Yes, it took a lot longer to get there than it should've, but better late than never I say.

Don't get me wrong, I was a huge Call of Duty fan. I have all the games since 2007's Modern Warfare, but after Black Ops I the series took a dive IMO. Modern Warfare 3 was a mess all-in-all, and I only played a few hours of Black Ops 2 multiplayer before opting to sell it. I've since gone back to Battlefield 3, and I'm loving every second of it.
#6.1 (Edited 1157d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
NYC_Gamer  +   1158d ago
Call of Duty is just a sales monster
RAYMEISTER  +   1158d ago
Wow I think BF3 w/ premium is a much better game/ deal. Amazing. People just like to but the same thing year after year. Baffles me
ahronith  +   1158d ago
Just look at all the i-tards that purchase apple products every 6 months with mimimal upgrades...people just like to buy new things.
KMCROC  +   1158d ago
I can bet that one billion or so were a bunch of whining gamers who bitched about how COD is copy & paste, but yet look at those #'s. So much for the am not buying it cause it's a copy & paste game ha ha ha F-In hypocrites.
ApolloTheBoss  +   1158d ago
*Sigh*... One day.
Cam977  +   1158d ago
I bet the devs are using it as toilet roll.
MasterD919  +   1158d ago
And I'll be earning $40 when I trade it in to BB.

I'm over it completely and it's just collecting dust now. The lack of hit-detection, the kids that are playing like their k/d ratios will earn them a career, and the server issues alone are enough to keep me away from this game.

I will not be buying MW4 next year either. MW3 was still far worse than BO2. No more COD games for me.
venom06  +   1158d ago
Until "SHEEPLE" stop supporting this garbage franchise with the dollars, and start demanding better design maps, better matchmaking and DEFINITELY better lag compensation (dedicated servers), Activision will continue laughing all the way to the bank and totally ignore the community's BO2 rants and complaints that are flooding the internet every day.
samekratos  +   1158d ago
F***** noobs
B-radical  +   1158d ago
With all that money you think they could make a better game no offence to cod fans. I am more curious to know of units sold then money made tbh.

Will someone please tell me how Black ops 2 is comparing to MW3 with units sold in same time frame?
#16 (Edited 1158d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Garethvk  +   1158d ago
As far as I can tell BO2 is outselling all of them.
A LIVING LEGEND  +   1158d ago
- and as we type,a hundred developers cancel current projects to begin development on the next big fps that isn't a COD clone in theory....
braydox21  +   1158d ago
huh, thats got to be some sort of record. well done black ops 2. i don't think people are fully understanding what COD is i mean like you see games like FIFA come out each year with minimal change where is the hate for that. that is what COD is its becoming a sport. i will admit that MW3 was pretty much the last straw the game began to show its repetivness in MW2 however black ops still continues to offer us an experiance story is improved with customization and story branching, zombies is improved with the new transit mode and overall upgrade such as setting customization. then there is multiplayer, the pick 10 system allows for deeper customization and more diverse play styles and choice. now just imagine if every other call of duty game never existed and this was the only game than bam you would holy s**t this a great game, with some minor flaws, such as griefers, online. for me i have never experianced whiny prebucent teens online before, i do play on ps3 which is proably why the likelyhood of this happening is reduced (apprently with an xbox you get a free headset or comes with a headset) im just saiyan that this is a good game regardless of its past.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login