Quantcast
CoD: Modern Warfare Spec Ops Survival Mode Exclusive for 1 Year

Forums - Gaming Discussion - CoD: Modern Warfare Spec Ops Survival Mode Exclusive for 1 Year

Replicant said:

Ugh, I wish console makers would stop this practice of buying timed exclusive games and DLC from third parties.

And why on earth do publishers/developers think that they can do this to a part of their customer base and still expect them to support their games?

Shouldn't you want publishers to not offer this content to be bought? 

Angelv577 said:
I dont mind seeing this kind of thing at the beginning of the gen since I know they are trying to push consoles as much as they can but now? There is no point. The gen is almost over.

Because gaming going forward is all about the eco-system. Considering Sony, as a whole, is making a large chunk of money from digital sales from the PS division, the more ppl they have committing to the eco-system now is beneficial for the future. This is why the PS5 also supports PS4 content: how likely is someone to jump over to a competing brand when they already have money invested digitally into PSN?

 

derpysquirtle64 said:
This is really the worst business practice in the whole gaming industry I guess. Even moneyhatting third party exclusives timed or not doesn't feel as bad as something like this. It at least can help a bit to polish the game for one specific platform so the overall product quality can be higher compared to multiplatform release. But when platform holder pays to the publisher to cut something from already finished product on other platforms it is really inexcusable. I wouldn't surprise if the content of this mode is already exists in PC/Xbox One versions and will just be locked out until October 2020.

This doesn't even make sense. What makes you think that buying an exclusive or timed exclusive is resulting in extra money to polish up a game? What makes you think this content is automatically cut from other platforms? Like, is there hard proof of this?

At the end of the day, a company is either getting a) an exclusive you will never play on another platform, b) a timed exclusive that you can eventually play, or c) timed content without stopping others from playing the core game day 1.

I personally don't see the issue with timed content, but a whole year for a yearly IP is truly something else... I wonder what metrics Activision have at their perusal that they have no real issue with this. Surely money alone can't be the answer considering how much they rake in with game sales and microtransactions to begin with.  



Around the Network
Replicant said:

Ugh, I wish console makers would stop this practice of buying timed exclusive games and DLC from third parties.

And why on earth do publishers/developers think that they can do this to a part of their customer base and still expect them to support their games?

Because they always do. 

Somebody put up the infamous boycott MW2 image; yall know which one I'm talking about.



NathanSSSS said:
Great for PS players, I don't care any shit about COD tho

How is this great for PS players when it means anyone on PS4 who wanted to play this mode or all the modes with their friends on PC/XB1 can't even do that now since it's not even gonna be available for them on those systems? It affects and downgrades the game all across the board on everything, literally nobody benefits from this. They made a huge deal about cross-play and everything being on time equally but right from the start there's already going to be something walled off between which system you have. It ruins it completely. 

Hell, I was already planning on buying it for PS4  before this news so it's not like I would be missing out on the game mode, but this is absolutely a scummy decision on Activision and Sony's part. 

Last edited by FloatingWaffles - on 25 September 2019

twintail said:

Because gaming going forward is all about the eco-system. Considering Sony, as a whole, is making a large chunk of money from digital sales from the PS division, the more ppl they have committing to the eco-system now is beneficial for the future. This is why the PS5 also supports PS4 content: how likely is someone to jump over to a competing brand when they already have money invested digitally into PSN?

 

This doesn't even make sense. What makes you think that buying an exclusive or timed exclusive is resulting in extra money to polish up a game? What makes you think this content is automatically cut from other platforms? Like, is there hard proof of this?

At the end of the day, a company is either getting a) an exclusive you will never play on another platform, b) a timed exclusive that you can eventually play, or c) timed content without stopping others from playing the core game day 1.

I personally don't see the issue with timed content, but a whole year for a yearly IP is truly something else... I wonder what metrics Activision have at their perusal that they have no real issue with this. Surely money alone can't be the answer considering how much they rake in with game sales and microtransactions to begin with.  

Having a large ecosystem doesn't mean everything is going to be smooth sailing going forward. Look at the drop from ps2 to ps3, 360 to Xbox One, Wii to WiiU. Gamers don't commit to a system because of shitty anti-consumer practices like this. CoD is a yearly release, many CoD players are going to jump ship to the next one after it releases. How likely is someone going to jump ship to another brand? Lets ask the ps2 users who went to 360, and then 360 users to ps4. Gamers aren't as committed to a single brand as much as you think. Especially casual ones, which is the majority of the userbase for all systems.

When a game is exclusive to one platform, it much easier to spend time polishing the game and optimizing to said platform. 

Considering this was a deal between publishers, Infinity Ward likely had the game mostly complete and knew what content was in the final game. I highly doubt Sony said, "Yeah we want this game mode to be exclusive" before they saw what the game mode was. Thus making it cut content. 

I think you underestimate how greedy Activision is. Have you not seen the microtransactions in the last several CoD games? 



smroadkill15 said:
twintail said:

Because gaming going forward is all about the eco-system. Considering Sony, as a whole, is making a large chunk of money from digital sales from the PS division, the more ppl they have committing to the eco-system now is beneficial for the future. This is why the PS5 also supports PS4 content: how likely is someone to jump over to a competing brand when they already have money invested digitally into PSN?

 

This doesn't even make sense. What makes you think that buying an exclusive or timed exclusive is resulting in extra money to polish up a game? What makes you think this content is automatically cut from other platforms? Like, is there hard proof of this?

At the end of the day, a company is either getting a) an exclusive you will never play on another platform, b) a timed exclusive that you can eventually play, or c) timed content without stopping others from playing the core game day 1.

I personally don't see the issue with timed content, but a whole year for a yearly IP is truly something else... I wonder what metrics Activision have at their perusal that they have no real issue with this. Surely money alone can't be the answer considering how much they rake in with game sales and microtransactions to begin with.  

Having a large ecosystem doesn't mean everything is going to be smooth sailing going forward. Look at the drop from ps2 to ps3, 360 to Xbox One, Wii to WiiU. Gamers don't commit to a system because of shitty anti-consumer practices like this. CoD is a yearly release, many CoD players are going to jump ship to the next one after it releases. How likely is someone going to jump ship to another brand? Lets ask the ps2 users who went to 360, and then 360 users to ps4. Gamers aren't as committed to a single brand as much as you think. Especially casual ones, which is the majority of the userbase for all systems.

When a game is exclusive to one platform, it much easier to spend time polishing the game and optimizing to said platform. 

Considering this was a deal between publishers, Infinity Ward likely had the game mostly complete and knew what content was in the final game. I highly doubt Sony said, "Yeah we want this game mode to be exclusive" before they saw what the game mode was. Thus making it cut content. 

I think you underestimate how greedy Activision is. Have you not seen the microtransactions in the last several CoD games? 

I disagree. Digital media is changing how we view ownership. Everyone expects their Spotify playlists to be accessible wherever they can use the app. Accessing Google drive as long as you have a google account. Accessing Facebook, Twitter from anything that supports them. iTunes music and movie from any apple device. Netflix for movies etc etc.

We have never really had this level of digital ownership on game consoles before as we are seeing now, nor were the benefits of digital ownership transferring forward so easily apparent as they are now too. Obviously Sony could screw up the PS5, but let's be honest, they aren't because they have too much riding on it. 

So I don't think previous gens are indicative of what we are going to see now.

As for the exclusive dealing, the guy I quoted wrote his message to seem that getting the money from Sony/ MS would funnel directly into improving a game for their system (if timed exclusive), not that having a timed exclusive automatically meant better optimization because of a lower platform count. i agree with you, but not with him. 

Yeah perhaps, but its speculation until we know for sure that is how every deal is done. Like I am not arguing against that being true, but rather that a source to verify it would be best.

Sure, maybe the only metric was money, but it is because of sales and micro-transactions that I wonder if there was more to it than just money. But if only money then it is only money. I'm not a fan of 1 year exclusive content for a 1 year game regardless.



Around the Network

At this point every one involved is stuck. There's just simply no going back.
If Sony doesn't do it, Activision will just go do the same deal with Microsoft.
This needed to be spoken against last gen when MS made this practice of timed exclusive content a standard.
It didn't happen then though, on the contrary Xbox fans were cheering MS on and bragging about the timed exclusive map packs and other trinkets.
Sony was forced into doing it to compete, and now we have this market where publishers can lock content on certain platforms and get money from the competitor for it and it's not just going to vanish. As things stand it's better that the deal be with Sony than with MS as most people play on PS4 anyway.



Sarkar said:
At this point every one involved is stuck. There's just simply no going back.
If Sony doesn't do it, Activision will just go do the same deal with Microsoft.
This needed to be spoken against last gen when MS made this practice of timed exclusive content a standard.
It didn't happen then though, on the contrary Xbox fans were cheering MS on and bragging about the timed exclusive map packs and other trinkets.
Sony was forced into doing it to compete, and now we have this market where publishers can lock content on certain platforms and get money from the competitor for it and it's not just going to vanish. As things stand it's better that the deal be with Sony than with MS as most people play on PS4 anyway.

So it's Microsoft's fault even if Sony does it? That is some strange logic there.

I have a better idea.. Ridicule everyone who does it.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Ah, the good old “Microsoft created this problem!” although exclusive deals were a thing well before they even entered the console market. Reminds me of people bitching about Rise of the Tomb Raider because “it’s known as a PlayStation franchise!!” yet they leave out the part where it’s known as a PS franchise because Sony paid to make it a PS franchise lol



Replicant said:

And why on earth do publishers/developers think that they can do this to a part of their customer base and still expect them to support their games?

Because consumers seem not to change their behavior.  People make noise on forums like this one, but that's just not enough people to be a problem (apparently).



Dulfite said:
DonFerrari said:

Don't think either Sony or MS have paid to CoD to not be on Switch.

Or are you complaining that Nintendo doesn't do it?

I was being sarcastic

On my end I wouldn't lose a second of sleep if MS paid 1 Billion to have this game forever exclusive to Xbox.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994