EA games and Activision….two companies at the top of the videogaming industry…primarily in the field of fps games… These 2 giants are soon to clash head on with their latest entries: EA games is releasing Battlefield 1, a game set in World War 1, while Activision is set to release COD: Infinite Warfare, a games set in the near future space.
Normally both these games are neck to neck when it comes to hype and fan-base. But this time Battlefield seems to have a clear edge. Tanmay tries to find out what that edge is.
Rockstar has launched an official marketplace for "every server and every player" to buy mods: Cfx Marketplace.
I wonder how much of this isn't just taken work of others who have modded for free.
Edit: Also, great way for R* to take popular ideas and build them into GTAVI based on demand.
What I see happening here is, R* is going to ban mods in GTA6 UNLESS you buy them from the marketplace and R* then gets a cut of that sale.
Ah, perfect timing with them taking down the Bully online fan mod. Greedy a$$ company.
Yep, right there with you. I'll happily donate to a mod creator if it looks really cool, or if I enjoy it. But expecting payment up front? Nope, not touching it.
I'm not entirely sure how to read this, as it doesn't seem exactly like an exact parallel to Bethesda's paid mods shenanigans.
Rather than single player stuff, this appears to be aimed solely on Cfx Servers. From what I've gleaned, apparently Rockstar bought the Cfx mod team several years ago, coming a few years after weird contentions led them to ban a few of their members. Ultimately, the question is if they plan to keep this contained to only online/servers.
I have to guess to a degree yes. It'd be pretty hard to "force" paid mods for single player when modding files locally on your own machine, but much easier for servers they'll control. So perhaps this is their soft launch ahead of GTA6 online and they'll clamp down more tightly on non-official servers going forward? Ever since they've become a 1 or 2 property studio, I haven't really cared much for Rockstar stuff, so I'm not entirely up on everything surrounding this. Sounds like it has the potential to be problematic further down the line, but right now fairly easy to ignore...I think lol.
Former CEO describes lawsuit filed by Swedish pension fund as a "collateral attack" on Activision Blizzard.
Kotick Made $155 million from MS in the buyout, the little b*tch needs to stop whining. Thanks to this Microslop deal and massive industry consolidation thousands upon thousands of devs and other workers lost their livelihoods. This greedy piggie pervert needs shut up and f-off.
Discover how Sony Interactive Entertainment, Nintendo, and Microsoft continue to collaborate to improve player safety across our platforms.
Honestly if Infinite Warfare didn't have the CoD name people would be super excited for it. It's a perfect example of when a game should become a new IP rather than a another entry into the franchise. CoD players have come to expect boots on the ground gameplay while players of games such as Halo or Killzone would welcome this type of game.
Over used future setting, it's gone stale. Now back to the nitty gritty past >:)
I'm a gamer, I am looking forward to both. Different games to me I guess. I am glad I can play a fast-paced arena Military shooter set int he future as well a slower, more open game set int he past like Battlefield at the same time.
Besides, you know Battlefield will need about 3 months after release to actually be playable while CoD will mostly just work day one. Plenty of time then to get what I need from CoD before moving on.
At one time I would be more excited for BF, but after SWBF, I am starting to dislike EA and do not trust them. At least Activision has been consistent if nothing else.
I am always more excited for new BF games over COD. BF, IMO, is a superior franchise.