A look into why Activsion should have been an industry leader by taking the Call of Duty series into the realm of VR instead of the Battle Royale genre.
If you want to make a Battle Royale game then you should build it from the ground up and not tack it on to an existing franchise.
And this doesn’t make things better. https://mobile.twitter.com/...
You mean like how it was tacked on to fortnite?
The article talks about all VR HMDs. But seems to be only pointing at console VR game releases like Bravo Team that wasn't an answer to Call of Duty. It wasn't even made for multiple players or PVP. It was more like a failed Time Crisis shooter. The article also ignores the elephant in the room of Firewall Zero Hour that came out in August on PSVR that does give you multiplayer and PVP. And doesn't mention Pavlov or Onward on PC. Article needs more detail and research. As for call of duty, they are right that it's now chasing fads instead of creating them. But that comes from franchise fatigue and yearly releases. It's overkill even if different teams are making it. That kills innovation. And Call of Duty Jackal Assault was just a free experience to sell the main game. It was good. But basically advertising. Like the We Happy experience. Even though a VR COD would bring the name chasers to VR. And, maybe sell more headsets because of names. I'm glad that VR games are mostly NEW IPs with new developers making a name for themselves. Not **ANOTHER** COD. Plus, not enough headsets are out there for the profits the company is known for chasing.
I mostly agree with your comment but I think VR needs COD to really take off. Besides that would probably be the only way I'd play COD
Jackal Assault was awesome. Imagine a full game? Hell yeah! I think there is a good opportunity with COD franchise to add at least a campaign in VR and build up from that VR pvp.
For those that like COD, it would sell to them. It wouldn't be bad if there was a vr game for the main hmds. Just not necessary when a game is good made in that genre. It just seems that some gamers are looking for NAMES than looking for GAMES. "I want ratchet and clank or mario in vr." But overlook Moss and the upcoming Astrobot. Or even Lucky Tales. "I want Fight Night or Punchout in vr. " But overlook Knockout League and the upcoming Creed. ""I want COD in vr." But overlook Firewall and the upcoming Zero Caliber and Zero Killed. There are many titles that are new ips that fit the bill. But gamers are looking for their favorite brand name than a brand new possible franchise. That's my only thing. These indy developers are leading the way. While the bigger developers cower in fear to even try. Then when vr becomes big, they'll jump in like they own the platform. So I'd rather support the guys that are trying like Survios, than AAA companies that have the money to spare, but are afraid.
Fair enough I get what your saying. I'm saying more support and even more games doesn't hurt. It's not about names. It's about every studio getting on the VR train. The VR demo was great. Make it a game is a bad thing?
Oh I agree. More good games and experiences won't hurt at all. I just don't want gamers to miss out on the little guys who are tryng their best. And they are only waiting to jump in and play vr when the big boys and their big games show up. Gamers should jump in and have fun now if they can. There's different types of good games on hand for everybody.
This, Firewall is revolutionary and it's being ignored by media because they don't like to praise VR. Damn shame.
After spending time with firewall I now fully understand how fun and intense a online vr fps using the aim controller can be and yeah I belive cod would be a great title for vr
Activision is going after the money and in the immediate future it's definitely in battle royale way more than VR although I would have personally preferred the former I can understand the decision.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.