Activision/CoD news

[KFalcon]

http://bashandslash.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1313&Itemid=1

Activision insulting the pc market and clearly showing where their focus lies (as if it wasn't obvious with their recent PC incarnations of CoD anyway).

And some interesting news about the E3 show of CoD:
http://beefjack.com/news/did-robert-bowling-mime-mw3-microsoft-e3-demo/

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

He's not wrong. I'm fairly certain that the entire target audience for Call of Duty games is console gamers, not PC gamers. To Activision, PC gamers will just be PC gamers, a nice little addition to the profit that they aim to make off their bulk audience. I don't see how this is much of an insult to PC gaming or how it's a surprise to anyone, you said yourself that you knew that their interest lies with the console market, everyone knows it.

The second thing isn't really important either. Whether it was mimed of actually a live showing, we still seen what Modern Warfare 3 is going to be like. Live or not, it was still MW3.

 

[CleverNickname]

Yeah, at this point, PC gamers who still buy CoD are the weird ones deserving belittlement and derision, not the CoD-makers. I mean, really... a txt file that reads "kaboom" copied so much that it takes up the gigabytes of a CoD install wouldn't be as big a waste of HDD space as an actual CoD installation.

But nobody ever said we were all smart.

 

[DustyLion]

Kotick's deal with microsoft also makes it clear he only cares for the bigger markets. Namely exclusive DLC for the first few months on live. I own an Xbox and even I question that.

A message needs to be sent that constantly mining and burning your customers is a quick way to lose out.

 

[MisterShine]

So far I've only seen Battlefield 3 shown on a PC, I haven't seen it on a console which is where the bulk of our business is...if it's just a PC title, as it looks like today, that's a very small audience to participate...we're always interested to see what our competitor is doing.

I just don't agree with the article, or you OP, that this is insulting. PC sales are always* smaller than console sales, and only showing the PC version in terms of graphical horsepower is kind of deceptive to console audiences.

*for given values of always

 

[Awexsome]

Ever since MW2 it was pretty clear how little they understood or cared about the PC audience. I'm gonna wait and see which one ends up better on the console because although MW2 was a mess it wasn't boring. More than I can say for the recent Bad company games on the console.

And what I hear is that BF3 is still only 12 v 12 combat. If MW3 can work out more kinks and get closer to what CoD4 was then I'll probably be going with that instead of BF3 as their single player campaigns are looking pretty similar. BF3 probably doing vehicle sections better while CoD has the action packed movie feeling better.

It could be another mess like MW2's post-launch support but I'll wait and see how it shapes up around Christmas.

Although on PC? Hell if I had the time and money to get a gaming PC it would be stupid to not get BF3. 32 v 32? Glorious.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

So far I've only seen Battlefield 3 shown on a PC, I haven't seen it on a console which is where the bulk of our business is...if it's just a PC title, as it looks like today, that's a very small audience to participate...we're always interested to see what our competitor is doing.

I just don't agree with the article, or you OP, that this is insulting. PC sales are always* smaller than console sales, and only showing the PC version in terms of graphical horsepower is kind of deceptive to console audiences.

*for given values of always

Yes, PC sales are always small. That's why two of Kotick's biggest money makers (WOW and Starcraft 2) are on PC. /sarcasm

 

[adrian_exec]

I just don't agree with the article, or you OP, that this is insulting. PC sales are always* smaller than console sales, and only showing the PC version in terms of graphical horsepower is kind of deceptive to console audiences.

That might be true for Call of Duty, but go ask Valve on which platform do their games sell better. *cough* Steam *cough*

 

[Akisa]

So far I've only seen Battlefield 3 shown on a PC, I haven't seen it on a console which is where the bulk of our business is...if it's just a PC title, as it looks like today, that's a very small audience to participate...we're always interested to see what our competitor is doing.

I just don't agree with the article, or you OP, that this is insulting. PC sales are always* smaller than console sales, and only showing the PC version in terms of graphical horsepower is kind of deceptive to console audiences.

*for given values of always

Oh yes because Bad Company didn't sell more copies on the pc then both console (not combined).

 

[Akisa]

So far I've only seen Battlefield 3 shown on a PC, I haven't seen it on a console which is where the bulk of our business is...if it's just a PC title, as it looks like today, that's a very small audience to participate...we're always interested to see what our competitor is doing.

I just don't agree with the article, or you OP, that this is insulting. PC sales are always* smaller than console sales, and only showing the PC version in terms of graphical horsepower is kind of deceptive to console audiences.

*for given values of always

Oh yes because bad company 2 didn't sell more on the pc then both consoles (not combined)?

 

[LT Cannibal 68]

So far I've only seen Battlefield 3 shown on a PC, I haven't seen it on a console which is where the bulk of our business is...if it's just a PC title, as it looks like today, that's a very small audience to participate...we're always interested to see what our competitor is doing.

I just don't agree with the article, or you OP, that this is insulting. PC sales are always* smaller than console sales, and only showing the PC version in terms of graphical horsepower is kind of deceptive to console audiences.

*for given values of always

i agree and as much as i hate to say it i also agree with kotick.
battlefield 3 was only shown on a "very high end pc" and no signs of the console version were shown, now i don't know if you guys have heard but on the multiplayer side of the equation bf3 on pc will support up to 64 players whereas the console will support 24 also countion on the graphic inferiority of the console version i believe if activision capitalizes on these glaring differences they have a VERY good chance of crushing bf3 on the console front.

About the second article it doesn't matter if it was a mimed performance or not we are seeing what we get with mw3 and imho it looks fan fucking tastic whereas i know that the bf3 console version will be severely watered down from the pc edition, now i have just acquired a gaming pc recently so i will buy bf3 on that but but as of right now my enthusiasm and hype go to mw3 simply because it is also optimized for console as well as pc and i know that i'm not getting the inferior edition by buying it of my console of choice my xbox.

tl;dr if activision repeatedly hammer the fact that the console bf3 edition will be watered down they could see a spike in converts of bf to cod simply because they want an omptimized product or they don't own the required gaming hardware to properly run the game on optimal settings.

HOLY WALL OF TEXT BATMAN!!

 

[Lawyer105]

Although on PC? Hell if I had the time and money to get a gaming PC it would be stupid to not get BF3. 32 v 32? Glorious.

Oh boy, oh boy did you miss out on Planetside... 133 v 133 v 133. Per continent. And there were 10 continents!

Sure, it seldom got to more than three continents population-locked, but it was awesome when it did!

Unfortunately, it is now overrun with hackers and (as a 7-odd year old game) is pretty much ignored by the devs. But in it's prime, it was awesome.

If you're on Playstation, I believe MAG is very good, with big battles.