Tellyn Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 Yeah, it sure looks like everyone's "clamoring for it".
Nolan Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 Ignoring the balancing issues of the game, there is an extremely high amount of hackers as well. That certainly would constitute as broken if they can't be bothered to fix exploits.
Goafer Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 It'd be interesting if Microsoft would allow that for a title of this popularity though... I think the "Allow Subscription" and "Allow multiplayer on Silver" are the same decision. I don't think one can be made without the other. You pay Microsoft to use their Live servers or pay a third party company to use their servers. Microsoft can't charge you if you're not using their servers. They allowed it for FFXI and the FF games are probably the biggest blockbusters around (especially budget wise). Unless the COD games will still use Live servers, but charge a subscription for...well....nothing. Then you can probably be charged for both. I won't be paying a subscription for any COD game. Or any shooter. Ever. RPGs where you can get immersed in the action and interact with thousands of people (hence the need for some rather special servers) at once are fine, but a shooter that are a dime a dozen? Fuck that, I'll stick with one that doesn't charge.
Wesley Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't have a problem breaking their own rules to make a fortune though. Plus, although FFXI is a blockbuster in terms of quality and recognition... to be honest it doesn't have anything on the gazillion selling CoD though. But in actual fact I don't really see this rolling out for quite a few years. So maybe it'd be a question for XBox Kinect 2.0 or whatever they decide to call it.
Choze Posted June 20, 2010 Author Posted June 20, 2010 Anyone except 12 year olds can find major balancing issues with the game. 12 year olds seem to find them more than anyone including the damn exploits. Then use the exploits over and over. They still havent patched these out.
Emasher Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 12 year olds seem to find them more than anyone including the damn exploits. Then use the exploits over and over. They still havent patched these out. That's exactly what I'm talking about. 12 year olds just think they're awesome players when they use extremely unbalanced stuff and exploits. They don't understand that they're really just taking advantage of problems with the game.
jayseven Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 Are you guys whining about the game because you suck at it? I've not come across any of this 'unbalanced' stuff you speak of, and I've got about 15 days of play on the game...
Emasher Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 No, I was a decent player during the time I played it. Getting killed by some sort of airstrike every few seconds is really what turned me off from the game after a few months.
flameboy Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 it was always gonna happen given the mammoth success you won't get me paying though. I put about 10 hours into single player/spec ops then about 20 hours into multi on MW2 and that was enough for me tbh.
James Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Are you guys whining about the game because you suck at it? I've not come across any of this 'unbalanced' stuff you speak of, and I've got about 15 days of play on the game... Far from it, Ive played 11 days of it, and am pretty good at it. I use chopper gunners and the like because they are available to me to use, I still dont agree with having them in the game. The bit about silencer not working was a point to make that they cant fix a red dot appearing on a map, so paying for a service and wondering if they would fix and patch things up is worrying.
jayseven Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 No, I was a decent player during the time I played it. Getting killed by some sort of airstrike every few seconds is really what turned me off from the game after a few months. You must suck if you die every few seckondzzz NUBfag etc. And if you're skilled enough to get enough kills to get a chopper gunner, I don't... see what the problem is - that's hardly an exploit. I do think that the killstreaks could do with tweaking to make some of the choices more alluring rather than the majority of people going for pred/harrier/chopper gunner (prefer pavelows and minusing the pred, myself). EMPs require too many kills, but that's mostly because the game would be annoying if they were easier to get... The great thing about MW2 is that if a certain style of play becomes popular there's a style to counter it that you can assume. people running around with knives/shotguns? Claymore up, don't run around too much, keep a good distance from doorways and corners... People sniping with thermal vision, or using heartbeat sensor? Go coldblooded. Scout the perimeters. Stay in enclosed spaces. Chopper gunner or AC130 killing you every 3 seconds? Stay indoors! On Wastelands? switch to overwatch and shoot the fucker down! People taking advantage of coldblooded and pretending to be dead bodies? knife dead bodies! et cetera, et cetera. I am totally fine with people not liking the game, but to say it's broken is just stupid. Far from it, Ive played 11 days of it, and am pretty good at it. I use chopper gunners and the like because they are available to me to use, I still dont agree with having them in the game. The bit about silencer not working was a point to make that they cant fix a red dot appearing on a map, so paying for a service and wondering if they would fix and patch things up is worrying. Not seen any issues with silencer in game (obv. a hard thing to spot...) and had a quick perusal via google and haven't seen anyone complain about it at all... Got a link? EDIT: Just watched the last couple of mythbusters and seen a few 'broken' parts of the game that need patching :P Turrets in the pillars on underpass, being able to see the enemy team's radar if you go to teh pause menu on a killcam, and silenced M9 and MG4 show up on maps, you can survive a semtex stuck to you if you stick your head in a wall, and you can get outside of the radiation zones on wasteland and afghan... SO yeah! I'd agree tehre's plenty broken about the game. I apologise :P But having said that, in retort to emasher these exploits were hardly known when he was playing. And to sexual choc; I'd put money on them patching them soon enough -- hopefully after I get another copy of the game so I can have a go at some of them
James Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 I belive they are patching or fourzerotwo has announced he is pushing the dev team to patch alot of things, also no killstreak playlists have been announced. WOOP WOOP.
Aimless Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 I think Activision has missed its window for making CoD subscription based. The whole Infinity Ward fiasco has the hardcore's backs up, and you only need to give Medal of Honour a cursory glance to see which market it's gunning for. Not to say that EA will pull the rug from under Activision upon release of their reboot, but if Call of Duty was to go subscription based a large chunk of its audience wouldn't have to look very far to find a very similar game that doesn't charge them to play online. I would say one of the main reasons people play CoD online is because that's the game all their friends play. Likewise peer pressure has been a huge driving force behind what are generally considered to be overpriced map packs; no one wants to be the one guy holding everyone else back. The problem with this flock mentality is that should something start to drive people away from the game — such as a prohibitive subscription service, say — you aren't just losing those unwilling to pay but also all the friends of those people. Having said that a subscription-based Call of Duty could easily be made into a viable business venture, but you wouldn't see it topping the Live charts as current entries in the series do. Activision have proven to be so short-sighted and reactionary that a massive drop in popularity would have them running to the hills.
jayseven Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 MoH looks like it is indeed cloning MW2, but no doubt a subscription-orientated game wouldn't be simply replicating the same experience as MW2 (because if it did, people would just play MW2...). I get what you're saying about activision being morons and all, but I'd like to see it attempted. A subscription-based game wouldn't be aiming to be a chart-topper- activision have Black Ops lined up to do that. Segregating what are ultimately wholely different gamestyles found in MW2 gives both areas a chance to be honed! Focused! Beautifulized, and other such endearing terms a MW2 fanboy such as I can dream about. I'm rambling.
Aimless Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 What would you like to see from a subscription based CoD? I'm fairly confident in saying that Kotick wasn't talking about making something all that divergent from the current game, he just wants to monetise all the time people are currently spending on the series. I don't think he'd be all that interested in making something radically different as it would be both riskier and more expensive. That's part of the problem with subscriptions: when you're paying a monthly fee you expect certain things, and if the CoD series were to step up to those heightened expectations it would cost far more to make and run, the fanbase also growing louder and more demanding.
jayseven Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Perhaps a weapon system something more similar to BorderlandsslashArmy Of Two, where guns themselves can be adapted to suit different purposes. Greater customisation of the appearance of each of your class dudes... Ok so everything I can think of is stuff that I'd be asking for even if it wasn't a subscription service. But when I think of a monthly fee I think of the avatar, the sense of ownership and sense of worth in a virtual world. I'm not trying to claim I know how to do that in an appealing way for CoD without it becoming detrimental to the current gameplay that is so appealing, but I'd like to see how they could transplant the guild mentality/community aspect without the game becoming factioned and the enjoyment curve being too steep. As I say, I'm not seeing this rationally, I'm dreaming of some unshaped shadow of potential, with no idea how to form it. I suppose an easier way to monetise the situation is to offer free maps every now and then, with limited-time events and one-off challenges. What is missing from MW2 is the option to browse other players' titles/emblems, and again this is something that I'd've liked whether I was subscribing or not.
dwarf Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 I to play Medal of Honour Frontline again, I remember the campaign in it actually being pretty awesome. Rising was pretty poor so I'm glad they've chosen the right one to include in the PS3 pack-in.
BeerMonkey Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 30 odd quid for years xboxlive 30-40 for the game 10 for map pack x 2 and now he wants us to pay subscribtion....Here have my wallet have my clothes and my house while your there :/
Jimbob Posted June 21, 2010 Posted June 21, 2010 Not a chance for Gold Members, who already pay £30 or so a year for a subscription to play online. Fair enough, people already pay for the broadband then pay for Live Gold on top of that. But would they pay an extra subscription just to play COD??. Well, i know a few who would (my Uncle would pay for my Cousin who so happens to be spoiled as it is) I wouldn't.
Sheikah Posted June 22, 2010 Posted June 22, 2010 People saying you only need to pay for Silver and this subscription rather than also paying for Gold are missing the point; if you do that, you won't be able to play almost anything else online. So really, you'll have broadband cost, gold cost and subscription cost. Which would be laughable just to play your games online.
Recommended Posts