Top
The story is too old to be commented.
jeseth1393d ago

Man. That is just insane!

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney1393d ago (Edited 1393d ago )

and yet It can't get a lot of 90 score form reviewers of customer reviews.

LUCKYXS7LEVEN1392d ago

and it can't give the players dedicated servers

Garethvk1393d 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.

Swiggins1393d ago

Unfortunately we probably won't get a new engine until the next console cycle.

taquito1393d ago (Edited 1393d 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

ufo8mycat1393d 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.

csreynolds1393d 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*

FlameBaitGod1393d ago

They are just super cheap man.

csreynolds1393d ago

Precisely, which is why I have gone back to Battlefield 3 and vowed never to buy another Call of Duty game.

LOGICWINS1393d 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?

Ducky1393d ago (Edited 1393d 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.

csreynolds1392d 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...

momthemeatloaf1393d ago

Proves that this gen is lacking variety.

MiyagiSPG1393d ago

Or Gamers who lack trying something new.

Lvl_up_gamer1393d ago

Or despite what the Interwebz think, Call of Duty is actually a good game that people like to play.

Show all comments (33)
The story is too old to be commented.