By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - COD: Advanced Warfare DLC first on Xbox

J_Allard on 03 May 2014
BMaker11 said:

May I ask why you think the PS3 versions of CoD were "way inferior"? The gameplay was identical across both platforms, no shitty network lag (which always confused me about people saying XBL >>>>> PSN. The online play was the same), etc. and if you just mean it was inferior because you wanted to chat with your friends then #1 your standards for "way inferior" are ridiculous and #2 you could chat with your friends....there was no party chat, but you could simply mute the other people.

And TIL one company paying another makes can make a person feel second class. Not that one company decided to shun your group specifically and intentionally (like what many 3rd parties do to Nintendo, case in point, Advanced Warfare), but one company essentially bribed another = you feeling inferior. The ridiculous, vindictive, unfair and abhorrently long wait of.....ONE WHOLE MONTH (gasp!), must have made you feel like the scum of the earth.

lol @ underlined. Do you really want permission to ask me why I felt the PS3 versions were way inferior or do you want to preemptively explain why I must be wrong? You did touch on a couple though, but was wrong anyway. Matchmaking was faster on Live for me, and voice quality in any game was/is shit on PSN. I played MW2 (about half and half), World at War (only a little, 10th prestige on XBL), Blops (again about half and half), MW3, and some Blops 2 on PS3. MW3 and Blops were especially shitty in regards to load times and image quality. The PS3 games were just darker. Ghost has this same problem on both last gen consoles. But yeah, shitty load times, dark and muddy image quality, slow matchmaking, and crap voice quality was enough for me to feel the games were way inferior, without even mentioning the DLC stuff.

And why do I care what Activision or MS did behind the scenes? Speaking purely on a personal level, they are irrelevant. And no one said scum of the Earth, calm down.



Around the Network
HokageTenshi on 03 May 2014

well, this thread will be more interesting if it didn't... 



vivster on 03 May 2014

Oh they're still doing this. Alright then.
It will still sell better on PS4. Maybe Activision just wants the Xbox version to have a fighting chance.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

toot1231 on 03 May 2014

is this really a big deal?



http://moongypsy.bandcamp.com/ ~Thank you Stefl1504 for the amazing sig~
vivster on 03 May 2014
toot1231 said:
is this really a big deal?

It actually is. Not because we all just love COD DLCs but because of the fact that MS is still getting an exclusive deal. Granted it's just timed and it's just DLC but nonetheless this is interesting.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
TomShoe on 03 May 2014

Jesus, I don't understand why people are so upset over having to wait a month to give Activision their money. This really shouldn't be a problem unless you're a hardcore Call of Duty player, and you'd probably be on Xbox. The only sad thing is that Microsoft should've used that money to develop first-party titles.

Unfortunately Sony countered by getting 1080p 60fps as a lifetime exclusive.



AZWification on 03 May 2014

Doesn't bother me since I won't buy this wonderful game!



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

BMaker11 on 03 May 2014
J_Allard said:
BMaker11 said:

May I ask why you think the PS3 versions of CoD were "way inferior"? The gameplay was identical across both platforms, no shitty network lag (which always confused me about people saying XBL >>>>> PSN. The online play was the same), etc. and if you just mean it was inferior because you wanted to chat with your friends then #1 your standards for "way inferior" are ridiculous and #2 you could chat with your friends....there was no party chat, but you could simply mute the other people.

And TIL one company paying another makes can make a person feel second class. Not that one company decided to shun your group specifically and intentionally (like what many 3rd parties do to Nintendo, case in point, Advanced Warfare), but one company essentially bribed another = you feeling inferior. The ridiculous, vindictive, unfair and abhorrently long wait of.....ONE WHOLE MONTH (gasp!), must have made you feel like the scum of the earth.

lol @ underlined. Do you really want permission to ask me why I felt the PS3 versions were way inferior or do you want to preemptively explain why I must be wrong? You did touch on a couple though, but was wrong anyway. Matchmaking was faster on Live for me, and voice quality in any game was/is shit on PSN. I played MW2 (about half and half), World at War (only a little, 10th prestige on XBL), Blops (again about half and half), MW3, and some Blops 2 on PS3. MW3 and Blops were especially shitty in regards to load times and image quality. The PS3 games were just darker. Ghost has this same problem on both last gen consoles. But yeah, shitty load times, dark and muddy image quality, slow matchmaking, and crap voice quality was enough for me to feel the games were way inferior, without even mentioning the DLC stuff.

And why do I care what Activision or MS did behind the scenes? Speaking purely on a personal level, they are irrelevant. And no one said scum of the Earth, calm down.

Maybe for you but having played CoD4, WaW, and MW2 on both (didn't play BLOP/2 or MW3 on both so I won't comment on that), the gameplay, connection speed, and sound quality were comparable to me. They were bluetooth mics, so they weren't standardized....but they weren't "shit". And you just completely made up the load times being "especially shitty". Only less than 3 seconds behind, on average? Well, I guess also, TIL "the PS3 DID NOT have a mandatory install for this game and still managed to do well with quick load times" = "especially shitty". To each his own, I guess. But funny you should mention image quality. Because when comparing XBone to PS4, things like resolution, textures, etc. don't matter to you because it's beating a dead horse, I guess, and it doesn't affect gameplay/isn't game breaking. But last gen, it made the games "way inferior"? Ok.

And you should care because if it affects you on a personal level, you should understand that it wasn't targeted against you personally (your group personally). Nintendo being completely shunned for not being a "good enough" console, while 4 other platforms get Advanced Warfare (two of which the WiiU has better specs) should make a Nintendo gamer feel "second class" because Activision is expressly ignoring them. But feeling second class because the company intends to give you the content, but they're still a business so they take money and you wait a littler longer because of it? That's like me feeling "second class" because Foot Locker sometimes has 1-week exclusive deals on particular shoes....but I only have a Finish Line gift card. I mean, I'll still get the shoes.....

Do timed exclusives make you feel "second class"? I mean, you'll still get the content eventually, but you had to wait. Probably not, because "it's not really exclusive. I'll get the content anyway". But hey, that doesn't fit well into the anti-PS narrative.



Squeezol on 03 May 2014

You know, getting DLC early isn't impressive one bit. You're basically asking costumers to pay for their bit of extra game earlier rather than later. I'm only going to be impressed if Xbox gets the whole game, say, a month earlier.



Callum_Alexander on 03 May 2014

I wonder how long the exclusivity period is. I presume it is a month as always, but it is definitely interesting that they omitted how long it is for. Could it perhaps be that Activision are only allowing a week? Regardless, it only takes one glance at Amazon to tell you how effective this strategy is.