Many video game industry writers have criticized Modern Warfare 3 as being the same as Modern Warfare 2, just in a different package. Fans and haters of the series seemed to have latched onto that theory, spamming forums and comment boxes with words of distaste and disinterest. With what we experienced, both with the two campaign levels we watched and with the hands-on time we had with the game, this title will bring enough changes to keep the game fresh and exciting.
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.
Windows Central: "The money may keep rolling in, but Microsoft is the custodian of one of the biggest selling video game series in history. If something doesn't change, I fear we'll reach a breaking point and irreparable damage will have been done."
In my view, they should probably merge MP with Warzone and essentially make it free to play like Halo Infinite. The campaign/zombies mode can be $30 yearly DLC. I know this would be insanity as most COD players essentially pay the full price of the game simply for the MP. However-with a shrinking player base they may have to consider it. Making it free would bring in a ton of players.
To late MW3 should have been a lesson but here we are two years later with a steaming pile a shite called blops7
Nothing lasts forever, eventually something will come along to make people forget about COD
Replies(1)
@Oumba:”We’ve heard that story many times before 😂”
You know what we seen many times good franchises been run into the ground by bad management like h___o , f___a and most of the sports game oh I forgot the dynasty warriors
Oh forgot to say
Happy thanksgiving to all the N4G members
🥳 🍗 🦃
Halo killer once arrived and technically call of duty killer also arrived, its name is Fortnite
Call of Duty was riding the revenue horse and charts for ~20 years. Whether undeserved or deserved.
But I endorse everyone to remind you that Microsoft could have decided differently when they took it over.
The money was certainly there, and they could have taken their time revamping the franchise:
Current-gen tech, manageable microtransactions, not imitating Fortnite and returning to core values of the franchise's origin.
They didn't.
Let's see next year. Hopefully without the then 13 years old PS4 and One hardware.
Microsoft reportedly lost over $300 million in Xbox and PC sales by putting Call of Duty on Game Pass, raising concerns over the subscription model’s long-term impact.
There are some reports that in March 2023, Microsoft told a court, "Game Pass prices will not increase as a result of the [Microsoft-Activision] Merger."
If true, massive hypocrite .
If this one franchise is the reason for the game pass price increases, then just leave it off game pass and not make people who don't play COD foot the bill for a game they will never play, like me.
Talk about stupid business decisions.
Honestly fuck em dude, they are constantly trying to monopolize the industry instead of just competing.
Exactly. Keep putting their regular games on GPU day one but big budget games that are very popular like COD should not release on GPU day one, maybe 9 months or a year later once they profit from sales.
I don't know if this is a stupid decision. Hear me out. I saw someone comment that it was time to cancel GP and MS would do a 180 like usual. It may be too late this time. It's the history of those other 180s that gives me some doubts about them doing it again or this being a stupid decision versus a cold calculation.
Despite never being the dominant brand, Xbox has at various times tried to push wildly unpopular changes on their customers when they thought they were in a position to get away with it. The 180s came because they overplayed their hand. Customers had options. They lost customers to PS because of the Xbox One launch plans. Anyone who moved to PS4 and stopped gaming on Xbox was a total loss for Xbox.
Customers still have options. The problem for GP subscribers is that most of those options are better for MS than continuing to offer GP as it was before and at the old pricing. Their fans cheered on their acquisitions. Some petitioned regulatory authorities to let the ABK merger happen. Congrats. They are now a dominant 3rd party publisher. Those other options gamers could threaten them with before now work to Xbox's favor.
Other than quitting their games entirely, which now includes ABK, Bethesda, and whatever else they gobbled up, what are upset GP subscribers going to do about it? You can suck it up and eat the price hike. They win. You can cancel GP and buy Xbox games instead. They come out ahead. You can switch to PS, Nintendo, or Steam. So? You'll be paying more for their games their than you were paying for GP, and are they really that committed to continuing to manufacture hardware (in the traditional sense) anyway?
Edit: Making matters worse is that this is likely being driven by pressure from MS, which has increased scrutiny of Xbox since the ABK acquisition.
The price would have increased anyway, which was already planned, with or without COD. They didn't lie about anything. You just misunderstood the answer.
@maximusprime:” There are some reports that in March 2023, Microsoft told a court, "Game Pass prices will not increase as a result of the [Microsoft-Activision] Merger."
If true, massive hypocrite .“
.
.
The problem is that you can buy a bakery and tell the community you won’t raise the prices because of the purchase then turn around and raise the prices then say it’s because the ingredients prices when up and be technically telling the truth.
.
Unless the courts would had a agreement in paper that the prices wouldn’t go up for example 5 years there’s no way to enforce it
Edited for typos
If this is true, this might be a case of taking a big risk gone wrong.
Is that why they always say revenue and not profit??
My question is, even though they lost 300 million in sales, were they able to offset it.
We might never know.
I don't know about you all, but, while that is a lot of money, that's less than I would expect. The totality of game pass users on two platforms playing Call of Duty results in just 300M?
Am I crazy to say that feels like an unusually low amount of revenue?
It is but for pc gamepass only works on the Microsoft store. Majority of pc gamers don't use any other storefront other than steam. So they wouldn't of sold much on the Microsoft store anyways.
That leaves Xbox one and Xbox Series. $300m does seem low.
Well, being that Microsoft is the lowest out of the platforms that sell the game..
Buying Activision, in long term, made up the loss of game sales of said game. By a mile.
But, being cod is tanking as of right now, will be interesting to see if Microsoft can actually save a franchise rather than destroy it.
They just raised the price of GamePass knowing they would piss off their customers.
You now know - they didn't offset it.
I’ve been saying for years, you just can’t trust MS period.
1 simple rule, don’t trust MS, act accordingly.
The price would have increased anyway, which was already planned, with or without COD. They didn't lie about anything. You just misunderstood the answer.
Which is an even bigger reason as to why you can't trust them, they play with semantics instead of being honest and straight forward. Your comment doesnt help their case by putting the blame on the consumer for what and how they said what they said.
Good, I had hoped Microsoft would be better for Activision and Blizzard than Kotick running the show but that would be expecting Microsoft to be competent at managing studios.
In reality, Battlefield 3 doesn't have a chance to outsell MW3. Plus, players will play it longer...
Don't understand why people always need to bring up BF when talking about CoD. I've played both extensively and they are not similar.
call of duty is more action then battle field and more people play it
The two missions from the campaign the author is writing about are the exact same missions everyone has seen since the E3 demo a month ago. In those missions nothing that was shown in the gameplay or environments were "new" and exciting as the author implies.
I really thought that with EA pushing the envelope with BF3, that we'd see Activision step it up with the CoD franchise.
MW2 Is good for a pick up and play, but I get bored after one game now.