"Thin Tail" Call of Duty Drags Down Sales

[ResonanceSD]

Cod 8 still costs 100aud on steam after all this time. Why the hell would anyone buy it?

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

which according to the person I quoted originally, doesn't count as making any changes to the game.

Well, but it would be a change.

Exactly. My point precisely!

Call of Duty keeps some popular weapons and rotates the "others". The way the engine works should not allow the unbalance the game suffers from.

I'm assuming that you've never developed a game? The balancing has nothing to do with the engine. It's all hand-tuned by human beings after hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours of playtest feedback. It's extremely easy to unbalance a game - far easier than balancing it, in fact. (Also, the balancing of a game is partly subjective, too. What you dislike, other people will like)

The lag issues are still here. The whole engine needs to go away or introduce more realistic combat. Since the latter would turn off a lot of people from the game, IW needs to develop a new engine.

If you're referring to multiplayer lag, then that's a real-world physics problem, rather than the game engine's fault. Even if our communications could travel at the speed of light, there would still be lag on the packets arriving at their destination above a thousand miles or so. The CoD engine actually does a very good job of minimizing the effects of lag. No, it's not perfect and it won't stop you complaining, but it's considerably better than if the prediction and smoothing wasn't in there.

Overall, though, yes the CoD engine is a bit long in the tooth. It's going to struggle on next gen... but what makes you think IW isn't working on an upgrade to their engine?

How are they going to do it in 2 years while developing a new game? Perhaps CoD shouldn't come out every 2 years.

It doesn't. It comes out every year! LOL.

And, love 'em or hate 'em, it's the massive franchises that have done this, and it's a good thing for the industry.

The problem is that when CoDMW2 was released, most of the general public's perspective on videogames was already positive. Black Ops and MW3 didn't do much either.

Halo had already been a massive success, WoW had already hit it's peak and people were already aware of party games.

Once again, that was my point. The huge franchises have been pushing gaming into the 'socially acceptable' realm for the last few years, and it's a good thing. I realize that you intensely dislike Call of Duty, but I wasn't suggesting that CoD is soley responsible for this. I said that the huge franchises (that are seemingly detested by an extremely vocal few because they make money) have helped do this, and CoD is one of them.

Despite your opinion, MW3 and Black Ops did actually push games further into the fore of the accepted 'entertainment' category. Some of the Sledgehammer guys that worked on MW3 were interviewed on the Jimmy Fallon show, for crying out loud! When was the last time you saw a developer on a late night talk show??!

Times are-a-changin' whether you like it or not (and it seems that you do not).

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

Times are-a-changin' whether you like it or not (and it seems that you do not).

But can you say that it's a change for the better, when the easy money is in the rehashing of old content than to risk any sort of real innovation?

Having more people aware that gaming isn't just for nerds is a good thing. The more people that want to be involved in this industry will very probably lead to the innovation that you're after, whatever that is.

You're not going to see much in way of innovation from huge publishers like Activision and EA because they are risk-averse thanks to the fact that they ultimately answer to Wall Street. Although, having said that, Skylanders (whether you like the game or not) was an innovation... does that work for you? ;-)

 

[Wintermoot]

maybe pricing down games that have been out for a while MW3 still costs 60$ new!

 

[GamerAddict7796]

Well, I'll go to my friend Steve from Ecuador to see what EA have too say about this...

Really, as most people have said if you bought MW3 (which ALL there fans did) on the day it came out, why would you buy it in March?

 

[RubyT]

Yeah, I can see how all those publishers who are not Activision are going to be bummed out by CoD's failure to pull its weight...

 

[Allthingsspectacular]

March has always been my favorite month for gaming and this year was no different.

Journey and Armored Core V FTW

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

Times are-a-changin' whether you like it or not (and it seems that you do not).

But can you say that it's a change for the better, when the easy money is in the rehashing of old content than to risk any sort of real innovation?

Having more people aware that gaming isn't just for nerds is a good thing. The more people that want to be involved in this industry will very probably lead to the innovation that you're after, whatever that is.

You're not going to see much in way of innovation from huge publishers like Activision and EA because they are risk-averse thanks to the fact that they ultimately answer to Wall Street. Although, having said that, Skylanders (whether you like the game or not) was an innovation... does that work for you? ;-)

I'd say that Skylanders wasn't innovation, it's DLC: The DLC'ening.

So the fact that you buy physical toys that have memory and stats, put them on a portal, and then play that character in-game isn't innovation? It's never been done before, it's a great hook and, judging by the sales, kids absolutely love it.

Why is that not innovative?

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

Times are-a-changin' whether you like it or not (and it seems that you do not).

But can you say that it's a change for the better, when the easy money is in the rehashing of old content than to risk any sort of real innovation?

Having more people aware that gaming isn't just for nerds is a good thing. The more people that want to be involved in this industry will very probably lead to the innovation that you're after, whatever that is.

You're not going to see much in way of innovation from huge publishers like Activision and EA because they are risk-averse thanks to the fact that they ultimately answer to Wall Street. Although, having said that, Skylanders (whether you like the game or not) was an innovation... does that work for you? ;-)

I'd say that Skylanders wasn't innovation, it's DLC: The DLC'ening.

So the fact that you buy physical toys that have memory and stats, put them on a portal, and then play that character in-game isn't innovation? It's never been done before, it's a great hook and, judging by the sales, kids absolutely love it.

Why is that not innovative?

Because it's not gameplay innovations, it's a shameless marketing ploy.

Tell me what gameplay innovation you want to see.

 

[ElPatron]

I'm assuming that you've never developed a game? The balancing has nothing to do with the engine. It's all hand-tuned by human beings after hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours of playtest feedback. It's extremely easy to unbalance a game - far easier than balancing it, in fact. (Also, the balancing of a game is partly subjective, too. What you dislike, other people will like)

For example, Battlefield 2 was far from perfect in terms of balance but the engine was supposed to support full automatic fire.

CoD2 had submachine guns (many times frowned upon by players), fixed MG positions and the occasional hand held machine gun. The majority of the time players would use the rifles because they were simply more powerful.

MW2 and MW3 favor the annoying SMGs and full auto secondary weapons and the guys who keep running a knifing.

The maps are just too short, the spawns too quick and random. Doesn't work together.

If you're referring to multiplayer lag, then that's a real-world physics problem, rather than the game engine's fault.

Yeah, game engines feature something called lag compensation. Here's the deal: the call of duty engine has had bad lag compensation for years. But the problems are more an more evident.

Plus, the P2P system? On PC? It's awful, not to mention the host advantage (that Treyarch tried to bypass by adding "fake" lag to the host!)

The lag compensation system is one of the worst I've seen in a game. Add up the occasional glitches and the game is completely broken if you take a peek under the hood.

Overall, though, yes the CoD engine is a bit long in the tooth. It's going to struggle on next gen... but what makes you think IW isn't working on an upgrade to their engine?

Because they have been upgrading their engine since...? The IW engine is actually based on the Quake engine, the thing needs improvement.

Once again, that was my point. The huge franchises have been pushing gaming into the 'socially acceptable' realm for the last few years, and it's a good thing. (...)

Despite your opinion, MW3 and Black Ops did actually push games further into the fore of the accepted 'entertainment' category. Some of the Sledgehammer guys that worked on MW3 were interviewed on the Jimmy Fallon show, for crying out loud! When was the last time you saw a developer on a late night talk show??!

Sledgehammer? Glad you mentioned them, it reminds me of the "too many cooks stirring the soup". The most recent Call of Duties don't even try to hide they are money making machines.

How does a developer being interviewed effect me? It doesn't.

Nintendo DS and the Wii have done more for "gamers" than the Call of Duty franchise. Pure Pwnage had a TV show on Canada! There have been lots of franchises that broke the conventions and MW2/Mw3 were simply "late to the party".

I could argue that Carmack being an Aeronautical Engineering has made people respect gaming more than an interview.

Anyway, thanks for "implying" my hate for a franchise from posts defending that the game isn't working like it should. If I am expecting something really great, it's from Jason West and Vince Zampella.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

I'm assuming that you've never developed a game? The balancing has nothing to do with the engine. It's all hand-tuned by human beings after hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours of playtest feedback. It's extremely easy to unbalance a game - far easier than balancing it, in fact. (Also, the balancing of a game is partly subjective, too. What you dislike, other people will like)

For example, Battlefield 2 was far from perfect in terms of balance but the engine was supposed to support full automatic fire.

CoD2 had submachine guns (many times frowned upon by players), fixed MG positions and the occasional hand held machine gun. The majority of the time players would use the rifles because they were simply more powerful.

MW2 and MW3 favor the annoying SMGs and full auto secondary weapons and the guys who keep running a knifing.

The maps are just too short, the spawns too quick and random. Doesn't work together.

The point I was addressing was your suggestion that bad balancing is in some way a game engine's fault. It isn't.

If you're referring to multiplayer lag, then that's a real-world physics problem, rather than the game engine's fault.

Yeah, game engines feature something called lag compensation. Here's the deal: the call of duty engine has had bad lag compensation for years. But the problems are more an more evident.

Plus, the P2P system? On PC? It's awful, not to mention the host advantage (that Treyarch tried to bypass by adding "fake" lag to the host!)

The lag compensation system is one of the worst I've seen in a game. Add up the occasional glitches and the game is completely broken if you take a peek under the hood.

As you have never had "a peek under the hood", you wouldn't know. The prediction and smoothing in the CoD engine is actually pretty good so, I'll disagree with you on this one and move on.

Overall, though, yes the CoD engine is a bit long in the tooth. It's going to struggle on next gen... but what makes you think IW isn't working on an upgrade to their engine?

Because they have been upgrading their engine since...? The IW engine is actually based on the Quake engine, the thing needs improvement.

If you honestly think the modern CoD engine resembles Quake in any way more than the fact that an updated version of Radiant is used to block out levels, and the environments are stored as BSPs, then you're crazy. Once again, this comes down to non-developers like you assuming that those of us that do make games are just 'lazy' and never change anything. It's extremely insulting.

Today's CoD engine is "based on" Quake in the same way that a Ferrari engine is "based on" the one from the Model-T Ford.

(And before you misunderstand me again, I'm not suggesting that the CoD engine is a Ferrari... I've already agreed with you that it's long in the tooth and needs some serious upgrades for next gen)

Once again, that was my point. The huge franchises have been pushing gaming into the 'socially acceptable' realm for the last few years, and it's a good thing. (...)

Despite your opinion, MW3 and Black Ops did actually push games further into the fore of the accepted 'entertainment' category. Some of the Sledgehammer guys that worked on MW3 were interviewed on the Jimmy Fallon show, for crying out loud! When was the last time you saw a developer on a late night talk show??!

Sledgehammer? Glad you mentioned them, it reminds me of the "too many cooks stirring the soup". The most recent Call of Duties don't even try to hide they are money making machines.

How does a developer being interviewed effect me? It doesn't.

Apologies. I didn't realize this whole thread was purely about you. My bad.

Nintendo DS and the Wii have done more for "gamers" than the Call of Duty franchise. Pure Pwnage had a TV show on Canada! There have been lots of franchises that broke the conventions and MW2/Mw3 were simply "late to the party".

I could argue that Carmack being an Aeronautical Engineering has made people respect gaming more than an interview.

If you are under the impression that my previous post was a definitive list of all companies, games, and bits of hardware that have done good things for games, then you need to grow up. I merely took one example of how gaming is entering popular culture today. You have given some examples too. Awesome. It seems that we're saying the same thing, so why are you arguing about it? I'll say again: I'm not suggesting that CoD is solely responsible for this!!!!

 

[ElPatron]

The point I was addressing was your suggestion that bad balancing is in some way a game engine's fault. It isn't.

IW's engine uses a hitscan method instead of actual ballistics.

The prediction and smoothing in the CoD engine is actually pretty good so, I'll disagree with you on this one and move on.

Really? The only game I remember with such a crap lag compensation was Combat Arms.

In no other games I have witnessed an enemy scoring multiple hits while my screen only captured one shot being fired.

Once again, this comes down to non-developers like you assuming that those of us that do make games are just 'lazy' and never change anything. It's extremely insulting.

No it doesn't. So far you have been the only one to mention laziness.

Apologies. I didn't realize this whole thread was purely about you. My bad.

Me is just an example. How does a developer going to a show have any impact on the way you enjoy videogames?

My sports team winning doesn't do anything for "my" image.

 

[The_Waspman]

I read the title wrong, I saw "Thin Tali" and nearly flew into a rage, how dare they take away her curves!!

But OT: Most people I know missed out MW3 in favour of BF3, perhaps people knew that CoD was just going to be the same old tired shit and decided to try out pastures new?

This. So much this. Is it telling that I read the title and thought that they were blaming Tali going on a diet for something that Call of Duty was doing?

Then again, I'll admit, if they put Tali in Call of Duty... I might buy it...

*thinks*

Nah, not even that'd be enough.

 

[chadachada123]

You know, a price-drop after a few months could generate more tail-sales, but noooooo, Activision wouldn't want any AAA game released in the last 5 years to be even a penny under 60, now would they?

gamestop prices for call of duty games
Call of Duty 4:modern Warfare $12.99 used
Call of Duty:World at War $12.99 used
Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 2 $19.99 used
Call of Duty:Black Ops $34.99

so what we're you saying about call of duty games all cost $60 after 5 years??

You can't use used prices to support your argument. Used games are completely irrelevant here, as Activision has no influence over the prices of used games.

Try Target or any retail store.
Call of Duty 4 $24.99
Call of Duty World at War $24.99
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 $39.99
Call of Duty Black Ops $49.99

Just a few months ago, CoD4 was still $30, and a year ago it was $40. That's insane and asinine.