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

If multiplayer, I pass. I don't give a shit about CoD MP, there are better shooters for MP. If the campaign is at least decent like the first MW. I'll only play it.

The last cod I played was MW2...



Around the Network
thismeintiel said:
smroadkill15 said:

You can have your assumptions. All I can speak for is the evidence out there. MS has been marketing tons of 3rd party games this year and last. Since Spencer made the comment, I haven't see any deals including times exclusive content for same day release titles. If there has been, please point them out. 

The evidence is staring you in the face, but you can choose to ignore it. Xbox had these deals last gen and the beginning of this gen. However, MS wasn't going to spend that kind of money on XBO anymore. Instead of taking a PR hit, Spencer spun it as him hating these deals so he wouldn't do them anymore. Even though he most likely played a role in getting them last gen and the beginning of this gen, as well as full games as timed exclusives for XBO even after that comment, albeit smaller ones.

We'll see how deep his hate for this kind of stuff really goes at the beginning of next gen, when MS gives him another shot at making Xbox a success.

You're using example from previous gens, and early this gen. I guess it's impossible for someone to change how they feel about something. Even if he is just doing it for PR, probably a bit of both, it's still a change in a positive direction. He wasn't referring to full timed exclusive games in the comment, but whatever. 

You're right, we will see. 



smroadkill15 said:
thismeintiel said:

The evidence is staring you in the face, but you can choose to ignore it. Xbox had these deals last gen and the beginning of this gen. However, MS wasn't going to spend that kind of money on XBO anymore. Instead of taking a PR hit, Spencer spun it as him hating these deals so he wouldn't do them anymore. Even though he most likely played a role in getting them last gen and the beginning of this gen, as well as full games as timed exclusives for XBO even after that comment, albeit smaller ones.

We'll see how deep his hate for this kind of stuff really goes at the beginning of next gen, when MS gives him another shot at making Xbox a success.

You're using example from previous gens, and early this gen. I guess it's impossible for someone to change how they feel about something. Even if he is just doing it for PR, probably a bit of both, it's still a change in a positive direction. He wasn't referring to full timed exclusive games in the comment, but whatever. 

You're right, we will see. 

That is because they wouldn't change because they became charitable, it is mostly PR and marketing. You can see plenty of his PR announcements that a new few days later were in the opposite direction.

You can see how obvious it is, because if they were changing because they though it was a bad thing they would keep it internal. But he have done all of it in an attempt to attack Sony, so all hints at he spinning the truth of he not having budget approval for the practice into all of a sudden he hating it since ever but just now being able to stop it.



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

The idea that MS isn’t doing these deals any more because of budget or cost is nonsense, especially when you pair it with this idea people are throwing around to cleanse Sony of any blame, that it’s entirely the fault of publishers.

Publishers like money, and if MS isn’t paying a certain amount of money, publishers would take less. For this idea that it’s all about budget to make any sense we’d have to see a bunch of smaller deals or even similar deals depending on the publisher but we haven’t, they’re just gone.

Also it’s not as if Spencer went out making it known he is against these deals screaming it from rooftops. He’s been asked in interviews and on twitter and he responded.

roadkill idk why you’d expect genuine discussion here from a user who literally predicts MS is leaving the console space any time they do anything. Of course he is going to spin anything Spencer says or does negatively.



And Activi$ion loses a ton of pre-orders on the game for their greedy shenanigans, LOL: 

Serves the fuckers right, not just for the timed-exclusivity bullshit, but for P2W loot boxes containing weapons.

And as for the all-too common "won't somebody think of the developers?" Yeah, no, I'm not gonna support and enable greedy bullshit just so they can keep producing garbage for the greed monsters, not to mention they already got paid for their work on the game. The only people helped by your purchase are the greedy fuckers at the top, throwing in P2W loot boxes and locking entire game modes on 1 platform for an entire year (basically the game's entire life span). And rest assured, they'll keep doing this shady bullshit with CoD every year like they have been until you stop buying their games.



Around the Network

And now they're saying the file size will be 175gb will all post-launch content on PC, meaning the base game is probably 100 gigs. 

Like I needed anymore reason to boycott the game. 

Yeah, Activi$ion did say loot boxes are gone, but remember, they also snuck microtransactions into Crash Team Racing: Nitro Refueled after saying they wouldn't and snuck in loot boxes and throttled XP in BO4 post-launch. They also said supply drops in MWII would be cosmetic-only before launch and later snuck in weapons exclusive to supply drops after it came out, so never trust Activi$ion with anything.



It’s so bizarre how anti-Activision you are for scummy moves yet you’re apparently a huge Capcom fan.



I woild approve this practice for indies so they know a big part of their investment is already back without a single copy sold



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Well, of course this is really bad for some of the consumers (Xbox and PC players in that case).

This is really bad practice imo, esp. from big publishers like Activision.
At the end Sony, made the deal but I'm very confident, Activision came up with the content they wanted to make exclusive, not Sony.
And this goes the same when Microsoft does it, it simply sucks for gamers (Tomb Raider?).

Now, like Kirby said, for small indies. I believe this is good if this can get the studio actually developing the game in the first place cause of the funding.



Imaginedvl said:

Well, of course this is really bad for some of the consumers (Xbox and PC players in that case).

This is really bad practice imo, esp. from big publishers like Activision.
At the end Sony, made the deal but I'm very confident, Activision came up with the content they wanted to make exclusive, not Sony.
And this goes the same when Microsoft does it, it simply sucks for gamers (Tomb Raider?).

Now, like Kirby said, for small indies. I believe this is good if this can get the studio actually developing the game in the first place cause of the funding.

Of course it is. By the time it hits XB1 and PC,  the next CoD will already be out, so they might as well not even release it on those other platforms.

Activi$ion obviously doesn't need the timed-exclusivity money being the multi-billion dollar company they are, but they try to milk every last penny they can out of the CoD franchise, so of course they strike a deal at the expense of other players. I'm on PS4, and even I think this is bullshit, I can only imagine how they feel.

Jim Sterling has the right idea: