CarlosX360 Writes: "On February 9, 2017 - Activision announced record-breaking revenues across all of their franchises, Activision announced that Infinite Warfare's sales were down from Black Ops 3, Activision announced that a new Call of Duty title is coming, and Activision also announced layoffs to 5% of their workforce. Where is Call of Duty going? What are Activision's challenges? How to solve these challenges?"
The VR industry has long awaited sign of true Call of Duty VR games, but will it ever happen? And does it need to happen?
I don't think it's in Activision's DNA to stick their neck out on something like this unfortunately. They've got a surefire winner with COD so why risk a winning formula.
fwiw, Firewall Zero Hour was more fun than COD for me, but obviously didn't have the same user base and budget
I wonder hypothetically if a non-VR COD style game were to integrate VR players, could you even balance such a thing out. I'm guessing no.
Highly unlikely at the moment. Executives are more concerned with being bought by Daddy Warbucks and golden parachutes than moving VR forward. They had a chance last gen but released a spaceship, combat demo instead. COD would increase VR awareness but if they were bought, the same thing that happened to other developers under Microsoft would happen to them.
Just consider, before being bought by Microsoft, Bethesda had Skyrim and Wolfenstein Cyber pilot. Ninja Theory had Hell Blade, Dexed and helped with Vader Immortal. Inxile had Mage's Tale. Double Fine had Psychonauts. ID Software had Doom VFR and Doom 3. Compulsion had We Happy Few: Uncle Jack Live.
Ever since the purchase of those developers, zero VR games announced or released. And since Microsoft continues to shun VR, Activision games like COD wouldn't have VR either under them.
Firewall, Crossfire, Pavlov, and whoever else makes an FPS game in VR, will have to do for the time being. Maybe Sony will make one like Killzone or Resistance in VR. Also surprised that Valve didn't put Counterstrike in VR.
I think the experience would be so different to traditional CoD and share so little with it that there would be no point in pinning the CoD label on it. I think Pavlov is about as close as you’ll get
This week's Deals with Gold selection on Xbox has rubbed certain Xbox fans the wrong way, as several Call of Duty titles are still ludicrously priced - despite being discounted by up to 67% off over the next few days.
How is 20 dollars for X360 call of duty games "ludicrously" overpriced?
And with Activision's lawer bills skyrocketing at the moment you are not going to be seeing deep discounts for a bit.
Pretty sure that's the sale off that's 60% off. After the sale ends that 360 game is still listed at $49.99, right not its $19.99 because the 60% off.
It's nice to see the Xbox community stand up for themselves though. That's been needed for a long time.
Lawsuits don’t cost billions, they’re ALWAYS going to be fine for money.
They could stack their bills on the ground and fill half the continent of Africa at this point.
Because Xbox fans are so used to playing games on the Xbox EBT subscription service, the idea of paying anything for a game seems ludicrous to them.
You pay for the service.
Do you have Amazon Video?
Hulu?
Netflix?
It's a subscription service. Not a charity. You're literally going at people over the idea of using a pro consumer service, and that's the real joke here.
When records were sold, they were eventually replaced by tapes, which cost less to manufacture, but more to buy. Then CDs came along and were cheaper to manufacture, but cost more at retail. Digital, of course, is the cheapest yet, but billion dollar corporations want to charge the same.
And no, that money is not going to the person sitting in the chair actually making the game.
It is pure and utter greed from people who don't need any more money.
"Many have also noted how the multiplayer in several of these titles is either dead or filled with hackers, meaning players are paying a hefty sum for a short campaign and potentially some zombie modes."
With these clear truths the decades older COD games should be permanently 19.99 regular price and sale prices 7.99 minimum
Typo sale prices 2.99 minimum and 9.99 maximum. Older COD tiles seven years old or older should never be over 20 dollars regular price
I have paid less than 3 dollars for some AAA PS4 games, old 360 CoD games should not be $20
Any fps game runs by the quirk engine follows this logic
Eat
Sleep
Die instantly
Repeat
As if the main purpose of the game more of "repeat" than the actual gameplay experience , any noob in this game will tell you his mind stucked in repeating the sequence number of deaths than the gameplay itself , what a complete pile of #.
It's why I don't play cod anymore, my 45yr old hands can't compete with these kids 😂 🤣
1 kill to every 10 deaths is not fun
Don't let that stop you if you enjoy the game, it's actually pretty good for hand/eye coordination.
Try Escape from Tarkov. It forces you to slow down and think. I’m not a fan of the ADD speed of CoD
All the back compat titles are cheap listing when you scroll through them u till you come to black ops it's a complete rip off
Well... Don't buy it..... Is it really that hard to comprehend?
Everything else you choose to purchase with your hard earned cash , so should games be held to the same reasoning....
Just don't give em the cash....
Entitlement that's bizarre, from the publisher and from the consumer.... Thats pretty fkd up if you think about it...
Bananas now cost $30 a pound. There's no good reason for it, but if you want bananas, there you go.
You don't have to buy them.
It's about their constant greed when handling the franchise. Nobody has to buy anything, but when a company doesn't follow corporate norms when selling their product; overpricing their old wares just because they can, the consumer is allowed to call that out.
Consumer can call them out, but I think they are going about it the wrong way.
The reason they get away with everything they do is simply because they can. They can charge $20 for a skin pack because people will gladly buy it. There is plenty of competition for FPS games, it's not like it's a niche market.
I know it's easier to blame and demand better from Activision than people that keep buying these overpriced items. If they weren't being bought, Activision would lower the price though. People like to pretend to take the high road but wouldn't you rather sell the banana for $30 than $3 if people are willing to buy it?
@therealtedcruz
I think there’s a virus destroying the banana and may even go extinct. So maybe that’s why.
I think it’s happen before too.
A small subset buys those skins and whatnot. Most players don't. The "whale" mindset is pretty accurate across the board, where there's a small handful who buy a lot, and most who don't buy any. Either way, that means they're imposed on the majority either way.
That's different from overpricing your game though. Activision easily makes their money off every release, then milks it until the next release, then throws it away. They never put significant sales on even a release from several cycles ago. Whether it sells or not.
And I mean, yeah; if I were a business, I'd probably want to make as much money as possible.
But I'm not a business; I'm a consumer, thus I find many businesses to be complete assholes.
And people are still blaming the high prices but suggest they're still wiling to buy it... Not too smart are you peoples....
Its a non regulated pricing structure, sure , many play by the status-quo , but to actually complain by complaining, instead of standing your ground and not buying it, by buying it , you are the reason its happening....
Idiots, Idiots everywhere.... What? So those that are complaining don't want to pay the money, but cant do without it?
FFS. Entitlement level 5000...
Drink some cement and harden the Fk up!
The article and title isn't saying that people are buying it, its simply saying that they are calling them out for greed. I guess you had a problem with people calling out Microsoft for trying to increase the price of Live, and don't understand how voicing concern led to them backing away from the decision.
People need to put that energy into Nintendo's Pricing over Activisions tbh. They're focused on the wrong things
Greed? Ok... Dont buy it and prove that by being greedy , they got it wrong... Not that hard to understand is it?
To Add... I haven't bought Cod since MW2.... Because of these exact practices.... Fact.
Andrew says: "The intrinsic values of COD are the following: memorable campaigns, meticulous multiplayer marathons, and lobbies populated by screaming 12-year-old kids that think puberty is the evolved form of Jigglypuff."
I don't think the author gets the fact that people want boots on ground only, and we're not going to pay $60 for the legacy edition, just to get that with COD4. A lot of us are waiting until COD4 is released separately. I'd rather pay ~$30 just for COD4 than $60 with Infinite Warfare that I'll never play
I remember when COD Modern Warfare came out, everything felt new and fresh. I don't ever get that feeling from a COD game anymore, but if they return to boots on ground and change settings to vietnam for example, I would not be able to resist buying it.
Inifnite Warfare is exactly what people are theoretically asking for.
It was a fantastic game and as a person with the Legacy Edition, it was a lot easier for me to play IW than CoD 4 RM
It was faster, smoother and the story was better.
People like it the author does not the author should get a grip