So, the last few MW3 trailers got me thinking. Call of Duty used to be single player game with multiplayer as an extra, until 4 accidentally had some of the best multiplayer in gaming history, and possibly the best of the time. Then Activision saw the big juicy bundles of money in that multiplayer, and we ended up where we are now, with the fourth game since 4 coming soon, and still getting close to the same thing with each installment.
Let me make it clear first that I like the games. I've played every one except 3 (because it sucked), and enjoyed them all. I played several dozens of hours of MW2's multiplayer and a bit less of BlOps', but I know that the multiplayer experience doesn't change much, and the emphasis on it is hurting the campaigns, to where they've become the extra feature.
So, the easiest and most logical way to handle this is to release one single CoD multiplayer game that gets rolling updates and patches, essentially making it an MMO like TF2. Devote one developer/team/whatever to that, and have the another only work on single player, spec ops, and whatever that other thing is that MW3 has, can't remember what it's called. Hell, with each new release, the multiplayer could get a major update to fit the time period
"But Phlakes!" you say. "We've all heard this idea. Probably half of us have thought of it ourselves."
Yeah, well, whatever.
Anyway, there's one huge reason this has a 0.01% chance of actually happening, and you know what that is.
Activision likes money. Now before some of you go off on your "corporations are evil and holding developers back and we're all their whores for buying their games" thing, can you really blame them? Let's say you write "I am a mongoose in Norway", and a million dollars appear in front of you. Then you write "I am a squirrel in Brazil", and 5000 dollars appear in front of you. Which one would you keep writing?
With each new release, people want the updated multiplayer, and most of them are paying $60 just for that, when instead they could pay $60 for a base multiplayer including all future updates, and then buy greatly improved single player games.
And actually, when I think about it, the MMO formula could get them more money. Let's pretend the consumer base is a million players, and stays relatively constant with each installment. Each year, they would get are 60 million dollars from people buying the games. Now, we all know the MMO type thing wouldn't be free to play, so let's imagine it's $5 a month. After twelve months, that's $60 a player. $60 each year for new games or $60 each year in subscription fees.
And then you take microtransactions into account. Knowing the fanbase (and that's not meant offensively), a lot of them would pay for unique weapon skins or those title things (offering custom titles for $1 or so would be ludicrously profitable). Not to mention that updating a single multiplayer game is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay less expensive then releasing a new one.
Basically, lots and lots of profit for Activision and the developers, players who love the multiplayer get their experience improved constantly, and people who like the singe player get much better ones.
In a perfect world, this all would sound reasonable, but this isn't a perfect world.
Let me make it clear first that I like the games. I've played every one except 3 (because it sucked), and enjoyed them all. I played several dozens of hours of MW2's multiplayer and a bit less of BlOps', but I know that the multiplayer experience doesn't change much, and the emphasis on it is hurting the campaigns, to where they've become the extra feature.
So, the easiest and most logical way to handle this is to release one single CoD multiplayer game that gets rolling updates and patches, essentially making it an MMO like TF2. Devote one developer/team/whatever to that, and have the another only work on single player, spec ops, and whatever that other thing is that MW3 has, can't remember what it's called. Hell, with each new release, the multiplayer could get a major update to fit the time period
"But Phlakes!" you say. "We've all heard this idea. Probably half of us have thought of it ourselves."
Yeah, well, whatever.
Anyway, there's one huge reason this has a 0.01% chance of actually happening, and you know what that is.
Activision likes money. Now before some of you go off on your "corporations are evil and holding developers back and we're all their whores for buying their games" thing, can you really blame them? Let's say you write "I am a mongoose in Norway", and a million dollars appear in front of you. Then you write "I am a squirrel in Brazil", and 5000 dollars appear in front of you. Which one would you keep writing?
With each new release, people want the updated multiplayer, and most of them are paying $60 just for that, when instead they could pay $60 for a base multiplayer including all future updates, and then buy greatly improved single player games.
And actually, when I think about it, the MMO formula could get them more money. Let's pretend the consumer base is a million players, and stays relatively constant with each installment. Each year, they would get are 60 million dollars from people buying the games. Now, we all know the MMO type thing wouldn't be free to play, so let's imagine it's $5 a month. After twelve months, that's $60 a player. $60 each year for new games or $60 each year in subscription fees.
And then you take microtransactions into account. Knowing the fanbase (and that's not meant offensively), a lot of them would pay for unique weapon skins or those title things (offering custom titles for $1 or so would be ludicrously profitable). Not to mention that updating a single multiplayer game is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay less expensive then releasing a new one.
Basically, lots and lots of profit for Activision and the developers, players who love the multiplayer get their experience improved constantly, and people who like the singe player get much better ones.
In a perfect world, this all would sound reasonable, but this isn't a perfect world.
