You took an arrow to the knee?
They just added this addendum: Editor’s note: Our reviewer managed to secure an early release copy from a second-hand seller in the UK in order to provide this review. The game reviewed is the Xbox One version of Battlefield 1.
Still, you can't fairly review the multiplayer until DICE can show their servers can handle the load and the game doesn't break. Also, we don't even know if the servers are live for maps and modes unavailable in the early access trial.
Yes, but early access is not the same as when the game launches. Battlefield games have been heavily criticized for server problems and being broken at launch. The number of players in early access dwarfs the number of players that will be jumping on when the game comes out.
Not all the maps or game modes will be available during the trial, so how can a review be complete if you aren't reviewing the complete game?
That thing is like Darth Vader. Been stripped and altered so much, it barely resembles what it was.
?!? How can you review and score a game when the complete game isn't out yet?
I see you put a lot of time and effort into your answer. Too bad it was mostly regurgitated vitriol. I do think IW will be the best selling game of 2016, but it would have been interesting to see if it would break the entertainment record had they not required you to buy Infinite Warfare to get Modern Warfare.
But, like I told you before, Treyarch and Infinity Ward games used to stand out from each other. But, now IW has brought over the control mechanics, zombies and sup...
@Garenthvk: Different strokes for different folks. The last CoD I gave an honest try was BO II. It got repetitive fast for me. I prefer Bf because of how many different ways you can go about killing an enemy.
@DarkOcelet: I prefer Bf, but I think the MW pack in with Infinite Warfare guarantees it'll sell in big numbers. But, we'll see. Gamers aren't the best at "boycotts".
CoD will always top Battlefield sales. And I say that as a Battlefield fan. Easier pick up and play mechanics.
@ChronoJoe: Yes, I'm using lifetime game sales of all platforms combined. I'm scouring the net looking for a place that gives solid numbers. If, you have one, drop a link.
Sales by #s (millions)
1. Modern Warfare 3 (30.78)
2. Black Ops (30.34)
3. Black Ops II (29.69)
4. Ghosts (27.73)
5. Modern Warfare 3 (25.05)
6. Black Ops III (23.88)
If Modern Warfare was sold separately, I would bet that Infinite Warfare would sell less than Black Ops III.
I love the hacked lobbies. :)
The game wasn't even released, this time last year.
Black Ops III is the 6th best selling CoD title. That's not what Activision wants. They want each title to sell more than last years, but the numbers have been trending down. Not, spiraling down, but down nonetheless.
It would split the users anyways because it's not like they'll all be in the same lobby. Also, you have to look at it from a business perspective. If Modern Warfare outsells Infinite Warfare by a huge amount, and Infinite Warfare's sales aren't up to par, then it isn't a sign of confidence in the future health of the series.
I think the main reason why Activision bundled them together, is because they did not want the embarrassment of a 9 year old game outselling their brand spanking new iteration.
@showtimefolks: It has nothing to do with sales. Infinity Ward and Treyarch games used to be different from each other. But, IW is carrying over the mechanics from Black Ops III, the zombies and even the supply drops.
But, most damning, they are requiring you to buy Infinite Warfare if you want Modern Warfare. I do not like this practice and can not support it.
Now everyone will move back and DICE can go forward with 2143.
Sledgehammer had been previously working on a Vietnam title, but it was scrapped because the remains of IW needed help finishing MW3.
Oh boy...