Poll: CoD Black Ops, when will you buy it?

[scorch 13]

FOR THE WHEN I FEEL LIKE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CNKFan]

My birth day is a few days later so mabey then. If I get a job between now and then however then I will get it the day it comes out.

 

[Treblaine]

Budget was large because the personnel were paid more.

Why were they paid more? Because it was the most anticipated game of the decade and Activision milked it and blew it out of all proportion. Games are expensive because of people, LOTS of people working LONG hours in HIGHLY PAID technical work coding, creating and testing.

Just be grateful it didn't urn out like Daikatana, it had similar expectations and inflation of costs... but Activision kept their eye on the money, but money can't guarantee things like insta-classics like COD4... only time. Lots of time. Like with Valve.

None of that changes my point in the slightest, I realise where the money is being put, but design is also a paid job the same as coding. And besides, just because you pay someone a lot, doesn't mean they are going to be doing a good job.

PRECISELY! Money doesn't guarantee greatness.

They were paid a lot because Activision (everyone really) knew that Modern Warfare 2 would SELL a lot! And it did... a bucketload. Same reason GTA IV ended up costing so much to develop, not THAT good but you have to remember the developers get a small or contractually limited proportion of the total revenue and profits that the publisher earns.

So if the developers last game was a smash hit and earned the publisher super gangbuster money they expect to be paid more for a sequel.

See, this is the problem with gaming as a creative art, there is a disconnect between the developers earning and the success of each game.

 

[Arcticflame]

Budget was large because the personnel were paid more.

Why were they paid more? Because it was the most anticipated game of the decade and Activision milked it and blew it out of all proportion. Games are expensive because of people, LOTS of people working LONG hours in HIGHLY PAID technical work coding, creating and testing.

Just be grateful it didn't urn out like Daikatana, it had similar expectations and inflation of costs... but Activision kept their eye on the money, but money can't guarantee things like insta-classics like COD4... only time. Lots of time. Like with Valve.

None of that changes my point in the slightest, I realise where the money is being put, but design is also a paid job the same as coding. And besides, just because you pay someone a lot, doesn't mean they are going to be doing a good job.

PRECISELY! Money doesn't guarantee greatness.

They were paid a lot because Activision (everyone really) knew that Modern Warfare 2 would SELL a lot! And it did... a bucketload. Same reason GTA IV ended up costing so much to develop, not THAT good but you have to remember the developers get a small or contractually limited proportion of the total revenue and profits that the publisher earns.

So if the developers last game was a smash hit and earned the publisher super gangbuster money they expect to be paid more for a sequel.

See, this is the problem with gaming as a creative art, there is a disconnect between the developers earning and the success of each game.

I agree to an extent, but I identify the problem more with being as a result of games being steadily taken over by hype marketing and publisher's with no real enthusiasm for games past the pay check.

Publisher's force what games will be a success through the advertising. Sure there is also a lot spent on development as well, but it's not spent on innovation, it's spent on making the game fit into the slot, hitting the most key elements as possible to please the common mass.

Games are no longer just made by enthusiasts, the people in control often have no care about the games they make. Publishers are satan.

 

[Oktanas]

No I will not buy it like all other war games

 

[Kajt]

I will not buy it. I've already bought Modern Warfare, World at War and Modern Warfare 2, and I've lost more and more interest in the series with each new game.

You know that there were CoD games before these right?
I stoped playing CoD when they did MW1, my last CoD was CoD3, when they went 'modern warfare' I went "f off"

Of course I know that, but by the time they were released, I was held up by other games (Battlfield games).

 

[HotFezz8]

punish CoD for inflicting MW2 on us?

or am i being a whiney story pushing muppet?

You are being a whiny story pushing muppet. If you haven't realized at this point that MW2 was all about the multiplayer than you should pay attention! Anyway, I have no fucking idea about Black Ops as I know nothing about it other then some flashy teaser.

LOL fair enough, but whilst i support the point that games should have a good mulitplayer (although i don't have the internet to play online myself) a game, if it includes single player and especially if its predeccessor put so much effort into its single player, should still make a effort to make a if not great than at least ok single player experience.

particularly if its one of the biggest games of the 20XXs, as MW2 probably will remain.

 

[Sun Flash]

I'll buy it when it comes out, not necessarily the day of release, though.

It's a bit unfair to punish Black Ops sales because of MW2 when Treyarch have nothing to do with it.

But yeah, I'll be buying it. Looks like it'll have a pretty cool story in it too.

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

Well, I want to say no, but I don't want to punish them...... But I don't have a sister either.... Hmm...

 

[acosn]

Likely not mostly just because I'm fed up with Activision. If I do buy it it'll be after the fact. Probably when DLC has been released or something.

 

[londelen]

I will not, nor will I ever buy a Call of Duty game. Or any other game with Activision involvement. To do anything else is just keeping Bobby in the big chair for longer.

 

[GodofDisaster]

I might rent the game but I have absolutely no intention of buying it. Got sick of the Cod series after MW2 came out. Although that being said I still play cod4.

 

[Treblaine]

Budget was large because the personnel were paid more.

Why were they paid more? Because it was the most anticipated game of the decade and Activision milked it and blew it out of all proportion. Games are expensive because of people, LOTS of people working LONG hours in HIGHLY PAID technical work coding, creating and testing.

Just be grateful it didn't urn out like Daikatana, it had similar expectations and inflation of costs... but Activision kept their eye on the money, but money can't guarantee things like insta-classics like COD4... only time. Lots of time. Like with Valve.

None of that changes my point in the slightest, I realise where the money is being put, but design is also a paid job the same as coding. And besides, just because you pay someone a lot, doesn't mean they are going to be doing a good job.

PRECISELY! Money doesn't guarantee greatness.

They were paid a lot because Activision (everyone really) knew that Modern Warfare 2 would SELL a lot! And it did... a bucketload. Same reason GTA IV ended up costing so much to develop, not THAT good but you have to remember the developers get a small or contractually limited proportion of the total revenue and profits that the publisher earns.

So if the developers last game was a smash hit and earned the publisher super gangbuster money they expect to be paid more for a sequel.

See, this is the problem with gaming as a creative art, there is a disconnect between the developers earning and the success of each game.

I agree to an extent, but I identify the problem more with being as a result of games being steadily taken over by hype marketing and publisher's with no real enthusiasm for games past the pay check.

Publisher's force what games will be a success through the advertising. Sure there is also a lot spent on development as well, but it's not spent on innovation, it's spent on making the game fit into the slot, hitting the most key elements as possible to please the common mass.

Games are no longer just made by enthusiasts, the people in control often have no care about the games they make. Publishers are satan.

Hmm, I think all it takes is the right environment. Publishers aren't in and of themselves the problem, they just often aren't part of the solution but I think we all have to accept that we NEED publishers, they are not going to go away.

I know it is tempting to say "who needs these money grubbers, they don't make the game?" Well they may not have much creative input but they are vital considering the huge financial risk that developers take, they are not going to work for free and we are talking 18 to 24 months of hard work on a game that relative to other media will not sell many copies but each for a high price.

The publisher are vital in "assembling the team" and keeping it together from planning right through to execution and good plans for sequels and re-releases. Organisation becomes exponentially more difficult as your development team gets bigger and bigger to the point where self management that might have worked for indie operations just doesn't work and you need a Publishing company to help these people pay their bills till the game actually finally ships.

Ever wondered why First Party games seem to be often much better than Third Party games? That is because the Publisher and Developer have much deeper and closer ties, with more common interests and cohesive working environment without the spectre of suddenly being dissolved or mass abandonment.

Nintendo's Mario, Zelda and Metroid games, all pretty consistently great thanks to perfect management at the Publishing level I think.

Valve is in a unique situation as often it is able to entirely self publish and only partner with EA for distribution of console release. This I think is key to Valve's amazing success, hit after hit after hit, sure they take their sweet time but they get it done and deliver solid games.

Capcom, great in house games but their worst and most inconsistency has been with their 3rd-party Developers (Dark Void, Bionic Commando, PC port of RE4) which I think is all down to poor developer-publisher cohesion.

 

[Arcticflame]

Hmm, I think all it takes is the right environment. Publishers aren't in and of themselves the problem, they just often aren't part of the solution but I think we all have to accept that we NEED publishers, they are not going to go away.

I know it is tempting to say "who needs these money grubbers, they don't make the game?" Well they may not have much creative input but they are vital considering the huge financial risk that developers take, they are not going to work for free and we are talking 18 to 24 months of hard work on a game that relative to other media will not sell many copies but each for a high price.

The publisher are vital in "assembling the team" and keeping it together from planning right through to execution and good plans for sequels and re-releases. Organisation becomes exponentially more difficult as your development team gets bigger and bigger to the point where self management that might have worked for indie operations just doesn't work and you need a Publishing company to help these people pay their bills till the game actually finally ships.

Ever wondered why First Party games seem to be often much better than Third Party games? That is because the Publisher and Developer have much deeper and closer ties, with more common interests and cohesive working environment without the spectre of suddenly being dissolved or mass abandonment.

Nintendo's Mario, Zelda and Metroid games, all pretty consistently great thanks to perfect management at the Publishing level I think.

Valve is in a unique situation as often it is able to entirely self publish and only partner with EA for distribution of console release. This I think is key to Valve's amazing success, hit after hit after hit, sure they take their sweet time but they get it done and deliver solid games.

Capcom, great in house games but their worst and most inconsistency has been with their 3rd-party Developers (Dark Void, Bionic Commando, PC port of RE4) which I think is all down to poor developer-publisher cohesion.

Oh I certainly agree that publisher's are still needed, but the problem lies deeper than that in my problem, my problem lies with obvious publishing trolls with extroadinary disconnects with their developers, ala Activision.
The way I see it, originally publisher's were often still enthusiasts with big wallets, basically they liked what they were contributing to and at the same time could invest and make money from it. Developers were paired with similar people, and it was a mostly happy partnership.

Further down the track and as the games and expenditure got bigger, more people moved into the business, and people who didn't really have much to do with games began to move into the businesses. People like managers, and office workers etc with little love for games.

Eventually you have middle men, and marketing guru's who have little at all to do with video games, and more to do with maintaining their job. Eventually you reach the stage that has happened with music, the publisher's are no longer just providing money and overall guidance, they are actually making decisions and have control over games, and yet they have little experience or passion for video games. And that is when serious problems occur, as the games are made to fit a demographic rather than as a hobby project, and you have people with a lot of power, but little knowledge.

Publisher's can be great, but they can also kill games. A lot of innovation nowadays comes from indie games rather than bigger titles, and I believe it's due to publisher's.

It seems to me that the developers with the greatest indepdendence release the best games.

 

[Nomanslander]

Umm, I'd like to know first if the game is going to suck or not, I mean this is Treyarch we're talking about.

 

[Treblaine]

Hmm, I think all it takes is the right environment. Publishers aren't in and of themselves the problem, they just often aren't part of the solution but I think we all have to accept that we NEED publishers, they are not going to go away.

I know it is tempting to say "who needs these money grubbers, they don't make the game?" Well they may not have much creative input but they are vital considering the huge financial risk that developers take, they are not going to work for free and we are talking 18 to 24 months of hard work on a game that relative to other media will not sell many copies but each for a high price.

The publisher are vital in "assembling the team" and keeping it together from planning right through to execution and good plans for sequels and re-releases. Organisation becomes exponentially more difficult as your development team gets bigger and bigger to the point where self management that might have worked for indie operations just doesn't work and you need a Publishing company to help these people pay their bills till the game actually finally ships.

Ever wondered why First Party games seem to be often much better than Third Party games? That is because the Publisher and Developer have much deeper and closer ties, with more common interests and cohesive working environment without the spectre of suddenly being dissolved or mass abandonment.

Nintendo's Mario, Zelda and Metroid games, all pretty consistently great thanks to perfect management at the Publishing level I think.

Valve is in a unique situation as often it is able to entirely self publish and only partner with EA for distribution of console release. This I think is key to Valve's amazing success, hit after hit after hit, sure they take their sweet time but they get it done and deliver solid games.

Capcom, great in house games but their worst and most inconsistency has been with their 3rd-party Developers (Dark Void, Bionic Commando, PC port of RE4) which I think is all down to poor developer-publisher cohesion.

Oh I certainly agree that publisher's are still needed, but the problem lies deeper than that in my problem, my problem lies with obvious publishing trolls with extroadinary disconnects with their developers, ala Activision.
The way I see it, originally publisher's were often still enthusiasts with big wallets, basically they liked what they were contributing to and at the same time could invest and make money from it. Developers were paired with similar people, and it was a mostly happy partnership.

Further down the track and as the games and expenditure got bigger, more people moved into the business, and people who didn't really have much to do with games began to move into the businesses. People like managers, and office workers etc with little love for games.

Eventually you have middle men, and marketing guru's who have little at all to do with video games, and more to do with maintaining their job. Eventually you reach the stage that has happened with music, the publisher's are no longer just providing money and overall guidance, they are actually making decisions and have control over games, and yet they have little experience or passion for video games. And that is when serious problems occur, as the games are made to fit a demographic rather than as a hobby project, and you have people with a lot of power, but little knowledge.

Publisher's can be great, but they can also kill games. A lot of innovation nowadays comes from indie games rather than bigger titles, and I believe it's due to publisher's.

It seems to me that the developers with the greatest indepdendence release the best games.

Do you have any good examples of innovation and progression that Indie games have made, that the mainstream have picked up, and which the mainstream (activision type) games don't have any such equivalent to?


See, Gaming is a SERIOUS BUSINESS, it should not need philanthropic enthusiast publishers to prosper and be a productive, creative and innovate industry. Good and innovative games Sell. It's that simple. It doesn't have to exist as a hobby project, though that STILL exists on PC and all sorts of crap can happen around that and not change that.

I have a lot of faith in business and commerce but I think quite simply that Activision is a bad company... full stop. And I think them losing Infinity ward is the beginning of the end, or will precipitate and exodus and a massive purge by the stockholders, fire Kotick and his ilk and bring in some fresh management. Too much money in Activision to do away quietly nor will the money let it decline into obscurity.

"It seems to me that the developers with the greatest indepdendence release the best games."

Ah HA! But independence... from whom? Valve is both a publisher and developer, it is as least independent from the publishing aspect as possible. Again, Capcom's greatest games like Resident Evils, Street Fighters, Dino Crisises, all publisher-developer works, together and in-like-flint.

I think the problem with Activision is how distant they are from their developers and their needs when really they should be together with them every step of the way, as they can't ignore the responsibilites they have.

Kotick is a TERRIBLE businessman, it is only a matter of time before the chickens come home to roost on him and his ridiculous ideas about how to run companies, such as that they should not be happy and trusting environments but dominated by "scepticism, pessimism, and fear".

Why did he not allocate budget for Beta testing of Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer? Why did he not invest in dedicated servers? As a result that made MW2's multiplayer far inferior to it's 2 year older prequel. It was death by neglect, not by meddling.

I think the ideal development is where if a publisher IS needed then they should ALWAYS be on the same page, making unanimous and collaborative decisions. Clear about the schedule and resources and how realistic that is.

And with this it is IMPOSSIBLE for "non-gaming" (or "boring businessmen" as you might call them) managers to operate, they would have meetings talking about server issues and coding or artistic challenges and have no clue.

Some people only follow they money, they work in absolutes and think they can broadly apply them to everything and anything they could manage. But I think that can only work by brute force (lots of money) or luck on a small number of big investments.

Kotick has now run TWO major gaming franchises into the ground; Guitar Hero (the talent exiled to make Rock Band with Harmonix) and now Infinity Ward (with COD) in the franchises that the developers actually created in the first place and have now moved on.

Now apparently Respawn Entertainment will have even more independence, I hope that EA will realise to be a good publisher they need to get involved, learn what the developers need, what is being required of them and the direction they are going.

See. It is a challenging concept, the idea of collaborative production of creative works, in film there is the popular idea of "Auteur Theory" where one individual (Director) should have obsessive control over his or her film... but look what happened to George Lucas when he was allowed to do whatever he liked and was never challenged or asked for consultation on decisions.

I think art can be a lot like science, some of the greatest discoveries/creations are made combining the work of many different people.

The key to great and innovative video games is of course the thing that at most are instinctively opposed to - otherwise it would have sorted itself out already - to have developers (the art) work closer and better with the money (the publishers).

Though sometimes I wonder if it may be just easier for publishers to start and manage their own development studios in-house (Capcom) or for developers to become publishers themselves (Valve).

We can't change the fact that the money makes the world go round and you can't make creative products without the talent.

We just have to all learn to get along.

 

[RicoADF]

I will not buy it. I've already bought Modern Warfare, World at War and Modern Warfare 2, and I've lost more and more interest in the series with each new game.

You know that there were CoD games before these right?
I stoped playing CoD when they did MW1, my last CoD was CoD3, when they went 'modern warfare' I went "f off"

Of course I know that, but by the time they were released, I was held up by other games (Battlfield games).

True, but battlefield games weren't on consoles until BF2.