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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Call of Duty Black Ops IIII Development Is A Disaster

Titel is wrong and embarrassing to read. Thats not how roman 4 is written u stupid shit.

 

 

User moderated - Bristow9091

Last edited by Bristow9091 - on 25 April 2018

Around the Network

I hope it flops. It was a perfect opportunity to create a new ip, even if using cod name like Call of Duty: fortgrounds royale, but screwing up the best ip they have which is black ops was stupid



fuallmofus said:
Titel is wrong and embarrassing to read. Thats not how roman 4 is written u stupid shit.

We know but blame Activision for that one, they named the game, not us.



Hmm, pie.

fuallmofus said:
Titel is wrong and embarrassing to read. Thats not how roman 4 is written u stupid shit.

Actually, the IIII was widely used back then, and it still used nowadays on clocks with roman numerals. 



Pemalite said:
Snoopy said:

1. How many people play COD and don't touch the multiplayer? A small number I can guarantee. Probably less than 10%.

Again. Irrelevant.

Snoopy said:

2. The multiplayer can be improved and they have a lot of competition so they need to be on their A game constantly. COD multiplayer is good currently, just needs to improve.

It is Call of Duty. Activision not only has the funds to finance the game... But they also have the resources to build said game.
No need for excuses like "More resources spent on Multi". - It's not going to happen. Activision will just keep laughing all the way to the bank.

Snoopy said:

3. This whole no single player is hypothetical  as well.

I'm aware.

Snoopy said:

4. They can probably profit even more without a single player. Look at Pubg and fortnite.

Are you saying that potentially millions of gamers opening their wallets for the single player component isn't worth it?
I think you need to think on this a bit more to come to an appropriate conclusion.

Snoopy said:

5. Yes Skyrim did well in 2011. However, this is 2018. I know time flies. Everyone wants to be the next fortnite, pubg, league of legends, ect. The money you make on microtransactions and all you have to do is update the game is great for business.

So... If Bethesda was to hypothetically release a new Elder Scrolls game, it will potentially sell less than Skyrim? Is that the message you are trying to convey here?

Horizon, BOTW and God of War are proof enough that AAA SP games are and will always have their audience. Far from niche, I will add to make sure my comment isn't taken and turned around through some stupid spin... There's money to be made for SP games produced with care and respect for the audience's expectations.



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Snoopy said:

1. How many people play COD and don't touch the multiplayer? A small number I can guarantee. Probably less than 10%.

Again. Irrelevant.

Snoopy said:

2. The multiplayer can be improved and they have a lot of competition so they need to be on their A game constantly. COD multiplayer is good currently, just needs to improve.

It is Call of Duty. Activision not only has the funds to finance the game... But they also have the resources to build said game.
No need for excuses like "More resources spent on Multi". - It's not going to happen. Activision will just keep laughing all the way to the bank.

Snoopy said:

3. This whole no single player is hypothetical  as well.

I'm aware.

Snoopy said:

4. They can probably profit even more without a single player. Look at Pubg and fortnite.

Are you saying that potentially millions of gamers opening their wallets for the single player component isn't worth it?
I think you need to think on this a bit more to come to an appropriate conclusion.

Snoopy said:

5. Yes Skyrim did well in 2011. However, this is 2018. I know time flies. Everyone wants to be the next fortnite, pubg, league of legends, ect. The money you make on microtransactions and all you have to do is update the game is great for business.

So... If Bethesda was to hypothetically release a new Elder Scrolls game, it will potentially sell less than Skyrim? Is that the message you are trying to convey here?

1. No not irrelevant. If the same people completed the campaign willing to purchase the game just for the multiplayer, why make a single player?

2. Oh boy. Do you realize that even Activision has a budget right? Why spend money on something that is useless.

3. Then you must realize you're a hypocrite.

4. Check number 1 for reference.

5. More sells does not equal more profit. Nowadays to compete you have to spend a lot more money than before (compared to 2011) and hope to sell way more copies. Not to mention a single player game like Skyrim takes a lot more time to create than a multiplayer game like pubg and cod.



Snoopy said:

1. No not irrelevant. If the same people completed the campaign willing to purchase the game just for the multiplayer, why make a single player?

Because that is an assertion.

Snoopy said:

2. Oh boy. Do you realize that even Activision has a budget right? Why spend money on something that is useless.

Of course Activision has a budget, but if you think Activision cutting the single player is going to automagically result in a better multiplayer, then you are kidding yourself.
Activision has a business model that has worked stupidly well for them, they aren't going to pass the cost benefits to the consumer, they charge the maximum the market will handle.

Single Player isn't useless. - Years after a game has released, the multiplayer populations have died off/servers shut down, do you know what keeps value in a game? The Singleplayer. I am a collector.

Snoopy said:

3. Then you must realize you're a hypocrite.

Once you start to delve into other logical fallacies like Ad Hominem, then you have lost the argument. Good work, you lost any argument you had.

Snoopy said:

4. Check number 1 for reference.

No.

 

Snoopy said:

5. More sells does not equal more profit. Nowadays to compete you have to spend a lot more money than before (compared to 2011) and hope to sell way more copies. Not to mention a single player game like Skyrim takes a lot more time to create than a multiplayer game like pubg and cod.

You didn't answer my question, you completely ignored it and side stepped it.

Go back, re-read my question and try again.



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

Pemalite said:
Snoopy said:

1. No not irrelevant. If the same people completed the campaign willing to purchase the game just for the multiplayer, why make a single player?

Because that is an assertion.

Snoopy said:

2. Oh boy. Do you realize that even Activision has a budget right? Why spend money on something that is useless.

Of course Activision has a budget, but if you think Activision cutting the single player is going to automagically result in a better multiplayer, then you are kidding yourself.
Activision has a business model that has worked stupidly well for them, they aren't going to pass the cost benefits to the consumer, they charge the maximum the market will handle.

Single Player isn't useless. - Years after a game has released, the multiplayer populations have died off/servers shut down, do you know what keeps value in a game? The Singleplayer. I am a collector.

Snoopy said:

3. Then you must realize you're a hypocrite.

Once you start to delve into other logical fallacies like Ad Hominem, then you have lost the argument. Good work, you lost any argument you had.

Snoopy said:

4. Check number 1 for reference.

No.

 

Snoopy said:

5. More sells does not equal more profit. Nowadays to compete you have to spend a lot more money than before (compared to 2011) and hope to sell way more copies. Not to mention a single player game like Skyrim takes a lot more time to create than a multiplayer game like pubg and cod.

You didn't answer my question, you completely ignored it and side stepped it.

Go back, re-read my question and try again.

 

1. Oh please, why do you think there are rumors of Activision skipping on the campaign in the first place. They run the statistics and decided it becoming more pointless. COD campaigns are pretty short and they had 3 years. So I doubt they ran out of time.

2. Cool, all ten people can play the single-player mode in COD in 10 years. What keeps a game going for a long time is a solid multiplayer. Take a look at counter strike source.

3. No, I'm just stating a fact that you criticize me for thinking there might be a pubg / battle royal mode which isn't far-fetched and heavily rumor.

4. Yes please, you might learn something.

5. This whole discussion started based on the question "is it worth it to add a single player". You judge worth by how much money you make PROFIT wise. Sure adding a single player might increase sells, but might not be enough to justify the high cost of adding a single player mode in the first place.



Should be taken with a grain of salt but a Youtuber got some info on the multiplayer and it does not sound as bad as I intially thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Qxc_3tzPk



Snoopy said:

1. Oh please, why do you think there are rumors of Activision skipping on the campaign in the first place. They run the statistics and decided it becoming more pointless. COD campaigns are pretty short and they had 3 years. So I doubt they ran out of time.

They have skipped campaigns on CoD games before.

Being pointless is just your opinion.

Snoopy said:

 

2. Cool, all ten people can play the single-player mode in COD in 10 years.

Do you have evidence it is just 10's of people? Or were you to lazy to do the math when it is in-fact millions of people?

Snoopy said:

 

What keeps a game going for a long time is a solid multiplayer. Take a look at counter strike source.

Not always. I can provide plenty of Multiplayer centric games that have had their populations implode.
And I can provide plenty of examples where singleplayer games have stuck around. *Cough*Skyrim*Cough*
What keeps a game going for a long time is neither singleplayer or multiplayer... It's the game actually being good.


Snoopy said:

 

3. No, I'm just stating a fact that you criticize me for thinking there might be a pubg / battle royal mode which isn't far-fetched and heavily rumor.

We have already established that you have delved into logical fallacies, thus you have already lost the argument.
Arguing beyond that is thus pointless for you try.

I am more than happy to educate you on what a logical fallacy is... And why it means you have lost an argument if you wish for me to do so.

Snoopy said:

4. Yes please, you might learn something.

Don't assume I am ignorant.

Snoopy said:

5. This whole discussion started based on the question "is it worth it to add a single player". You judge worth by how much money you make PROFIT wise. Sure adding a single player might increase sells, but might not be enough to justify the high cost of adding a single player mode in the first place.

Worth isn't just direct monetary gain you know, I have already provided an example prior with the LPG/Petrol fuel scenario, I highly suggest you go back and re-read that prior in this thread.



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