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

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

smroadkill15 said:
DonFerrari said:

Do you need any more evidence that this is an Activision decision than it not happening with other companies with the same frequency or type of deal?

Sorry but I don't. Stop absolving Sony of any blame in this. It's complete BS. 

Who cares? It's Activision and CoD. They receive the backlash, they suffer the consequences. Less pre orders for an overrated lootboxMTX first person shooter franchise. More pre orders/sales to other games that deserve it. Fine by me.



Hunting Season is done...

Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:

Seems like you fail to notice differences.

When MS created the practice on CoD for the month exclusivity, that was something new that they proposed. When right now people say that if Sony don't accept the proposition of Activision they would go to MS and MS would accept you know that is true. So that is what differentiate the criticism and you know it.

Also on the charging for online, MS again created it and sure customers were wrong to accept it. When MS done and got more money with neglible backlash why wouldn't Sony and after Nintendo do the same? So again it is very easy to see why people blame MS for creating much more than they blame who followed.

You’re only proving my point when it comes to the double standard. When MS and Activision got together for exclusive deals, it was because “Microsoft created it”. When Sony and Activision make a deal that is worse for gamers, it’s Activision. MS could have been in the exact same situation you’re guessing that Sony was in, but in Sony’s case you’re willing to absolve them of blame, but MS “created” the issue. It’s just like when MS paid for Tomb Raider to be a timed exclusive. Tons and tons of bitching and criticizing MS, yet people ignored that Sony literally moneyhatted the same franchise earlier. Double standard. 

So reply, didn't MS created and/or made it common to have month exclusive DLC? The Tomb Raider case got more backlash than other cases because first MS tried to phrase it as if forever exclusive and then had to correct it and because the majority of the fanbase were in the system that would being left out of the game. But you really do try to twist to defend MS even though you swear you don't do console war.

Same with online play. Nintendo and SEGA had paid online services on SNES/Genesis and the DC also eventually required money for online play. Sure, MS was the first to really make it successful, but if they’re going to receive criticism for online play requiring a fee, anyone who follows suit deserves the same criticism. But Sony not only saw zero criticism in some places but strangely it somehow became Microsoft’s fault that Sony was charging. Bizarre.

It was already proven in another thread that SEGA charged for ISP not for the MP, so different stuff again. Wasn't even aware Nintendo had paid online on SNES.

Sony received a lot of criticism in here, pretend as much as you want it didn't, from both Sony fanbase and Nintendo. The fact that between the criticism was acceptance because it became mainstream due to MS is a very easy to see difference that again you prefer to ignore and call it double standard.

Anyways im not about to join in the bickering about which huge corporation is nickel pinching more 👍 Rumors have it the game has seen massive pre-order cancels and IW devs on twitter have already been apologizing like crazy so it seems they know they’re fucking over all gamers here. Nothing else needs to be said really.

If the game lose plenty of pre-orders and do bad on the release I'll be one of the happy people, first because I don't like the game and second because it may prevent Activision and others of trying the same shit again. If this had happened when exclusive DLC started and paid online started then we wouldn't have reached this situation today.

smroadkill15 said:
DonFerrari said:

Do you need any more evidence that this is an Activision decision than it not happening with other companies with the same frequency or type of deal?

Sorry but I don't. Stop absolving Sony of any blame in this. It's complete BS. 

Big difference between absolving Sony and blaming Activision. Or do you would say that if Sony said they don't want Activision wouldn't go to MS?



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

smroadkill15 said:
thismeintiel said:

Spencer only said that because MS wasn't ponying up the cash for big timed exclusive deals anymore. If the shoe was on the other foot, he'd be taking those deals left and right.

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.



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...



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. 



Around the Network
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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

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.



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.