Business is business. Supply and demand. It's pretty simple and straightforward, actually.
We can all wish things were a little different. We can make valid arguments as to why Call of Duty shouldn't be the biggest name in the video game industry right now. Some might even be able to make legitimate arguments for saying CoD actually holds us back in some ways.
But is it really correct to say that the CoD titles don't deserve the sales they get? Is that an accurate statement? I'm not so sure… Logically speaking, if a company creates a product that everyone wants and a whole lot of people buy it, then things have gone as planned. The company delivered what was demanded and the consumers responded. Tit for tat. This is how business operates; it's the core of business, it's what makes business utilize an extraordinarily simple philosophy. Of course, that being said, this "extraordinarily simple philosophy" can become immensely complicated, as just about anyone will tell you.
Therefore, if you have an argument for or against the statement in the title of this article, we'd like to hear it. Do you support the idea that each CoD title absolutely deserves to break sales records? Or can you argue that in fact, these games don't deserve the sales they achieve?
Any game that sells well typically deserves it. The only time it doesn't work like that is when good games – Enslaved – in fact do deserve more. I never played Enslaved other than the demo but everyone says it's solid so…
Anyways, so I believe CoD deserves these sales. It's not as polished, nor are the bugs cleaned up as well as I'd like them to be this far into the franchises cycle. But theirs no doubt year in and year out they give gamers a solid, and
– the word I hear alot – *fun* experience!
The competitive mp is as good as it gets. And that's what's driving these sales. That to me says it deserves it.
For me, Enslaved is not a good game. It's a piece of crap. It tries so hard to be an epic drama, like the Twilight Saga.
Loved and platinum'd Enslaved. It was a good little surprise.
No because there are better, higher quality productions that don't even approach those sales.
That's what the niche music fans of all ages have been saying about the pop and rock music, that's what the indie film makers are saying about the blockbusters, that's the same kind of logic behind what the athletes of the lesser popular sports are saying about soccer and the other popular sports ("what WE do is just SO much more demanding and imressive than kicking a leather ball to eachother on a field") etc.
The best selling stuff is *never* the most "quality" productions (from an elitish, snobbish perspective). it's just the most entertaining stuff for the masses. Hence the sales.
Last edited by Beamboom on 11/15/2012 4:20:42 AM
And my argument is that if there were any justice the higher quality would sell more.
Easily accessible games will sell more than those who offer a more complex learning curve. Call of Duty is the arcade shooter of this generation. Meaning lots of flair and a simple leveling system to offer hours upon hours of replayability. I really think the targeted 60fps helps in making the game feel polished and easy on the eyes for the non-gaming masses who participate in CoD annual releases.
Last edited by Nynja on 11/15/2012 11:40:44 AM
Who cares if the masses buy the popular titles and it sells well. I just hate that true quality doesn't always sell well. I'm not saying I need them to be blockbusters, but it's a damn shame to see something near perfection not sell itself into rewarding it's designers with profit to be even more ambitious with future titles.
But what is "good quality"? Isn't "appeal" one of the important qualities of any product?
I don't think it is in any way fair to say that COD do not hold any qualities, it just might not be the qualities *you* are after.
I mean, when we cry over how few who buy the games with the qualities *we* prefer, aren't we in reality just saying "I wish more people were more like me"?
Last edited by Beamboom on 11/15/2012 1:17:23 PM
haha, yeah, but Beammy, no one will take you seriously on that front because you don't think video game quality is objective! (If you do, then your post here is a contradiction.) ;p
Personally, I don't buy into the whole "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Even in other artistic mediums, pure preference isn't enough to measure quality. People like Beethoven or Bach were masters of composition. I would argue people that don't like classical (or baroque) music simply aren't capable of appreciating the art that has gone into it, because from a purely objective and facutal stand point, they were musical geniuses. Heck, look at most -now- famous artists in history. If you measured the quality of their work in terms of popular appeal, most of our most precious pieces of art in museums wouldn't be worth a penny. Some artists in lots of mediums in history were broke their whole lives!
On the other hand, if we look at modern music, the Beatles were objectively revolutionary in music. But like your point suggests, it would have been nothing without appeal. However, is it then wrong to look back on the days of the Beatles and think… wow, I wish people appreciated creative and original music still. I don't think so.
The point is, quality is not measured by success or appeal. Yet, it's clear there is a tough-to-define, but objective, measurable for what constitutes originality, quality (in terms of frame rate, graphics, sound quality, control, etc), story, and yes, even progressiveness. It's those definitions that are unique wow moments… the games that people who aren't even really into can say, "yeah, it might not be for me, that game is pretty well done." Just like people who hate boroque music might say, "I hate listening to classical music" but would have to admit, "It's pretty impressive composition…" when they hear it live.
And yes… it is sad to see good quality titles fail. It's not like we haven't seen metacritic'd 8.5+ games fail. You know? How heart breaking would it be if Heavy Rain failed so that Beyond Two Souls could not be made?
Some examples of artists who were poor as dirt and therefore unsuccessful and lacking appeal:
Vincent Van Gogh
Edgar Allan Poe
also… mozart did poor and hungry (but that was mostly his own fault)
Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/15/2012 1:49:05 PM
No, not any contradiction at all. I am speaking on a philosophical level. Can we rate qualities?
Wikipedia defines the word "quality" as this:
A quality (from Latin qualitas) is an attribute or a property. Attributes are ascribable, by a subject, whereas properties are possessible. In contemporary philosophy the idea of qualities, and especially how to distinguish certain kinds of qualities from one another, remains controversial.
So, an attribute or property. "Appeal" is one attribute, "complicated" another. "playful" a third. "realistic" a fourth. "Simple" a fifth. "Speculative" a sixth. "Violent" a seventh.
See where I am getting at here? They are all qualities, from a purely objective point of view.
So, who are we to rate one quality over another? Who decides what *objectively* has the highest value? Can it be done?
Is Elvis Presley more or less valuable than Shubert as a musician? Does it even make any sense to compare them? Can their qualities be weighted and rated – at ALL?
COD holds qualities that MILLIONS of gamers across the entire globe value so high that they keep buying the games year after year. It holds such qualities that every release becomes a world event. And each year there are more people joining the ranks, more people discovering the qualities of that game.
Does it hold qualities that makes *me* buy it? Now that is a subjective question. And the answer to that is, on my part, "no". But then to deny that it holds amazing qualities would, for me, be absurd. *Of course* it does. Just like White Knight Chronicles holds fantastic qualities for Highlander, so high that he gave the game a 90+ rating. That is how this game is, to him. That is how he *subjectively* weighted WKC's qualities.
Last edited by Beamboom on 11/15/2012 4:24:31 PM
You're using the wrong definition for quality. Often English (and I'm sure Norweigian) words have multiple definitions. Here's a complete list of dictionary definitions for the word, "quality".
1. an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute: the chemical qualities of alcohol.
2. character or nature, as belonging to or distinguishing a thing: the quality of a sound.
3. character with respect to fineness, or grade of excellence: food of poor quality; silks of fine quality.
4. high grade; superiority; excellence: wood grain of quality.
5. a personality or character trait: kindness is one of her many good qualities.
The definition we are talking about in terms of saying "It's of good quality" is to use definition 3 or 4. Not the first one.
I don't know. I usually have something to say but for once i really have nothing to say. Most people buy it because their friends want them to. I did for modern warfare 2. I did not like it one bit. First game i got a 17 kill streak and the game acted like i won a bunch of medals. Maybe people like being over-praised? I don't know. I do think there's so many other games that could have used tons more sales. Like the reckoning. I didn't buy it but if people weren't so buzzed about shooting someone it would have sold even more. I remember when games could sell 50k and be successful. Im 19 and miss the old days. Thats not a good sign for the future huh…
You're actually onto something we've talked about before Zane. All those little "atta-boy" things in games can trigger the reward center of the brain, since you get so many people can get a little addicted to having that extra squirt of serotonin all the time.
This could also explain why higher-thinking gamers tend not to fall into the trap.
I agree with both of your statements. In fact if you talk to some of the CoD fans for a while or even have some yourself you can start to see that its because of the way CoD tickles their reward centers. I think most repeat customers buy it again because they love the instant gratification that the multiplayer gives them. The other bunch of repeat customers are people who just buy it because their friends are buying it which seems to be everyone 😛
It is so true that my friends who tend to be higher thinking individuals in general haven't played CoD in years because they see that it is the same old thing and they see through the atta-boy crap and the game just isnt rewarding.
Most of my PC FPS buddies don't touch CoD because it never feels rewarding in multiplayer because we can feel the aim assist, the lag compensation, interpolation issues etc, while people who only play CoD on consoles don't even realize these things are going on.
Anyway I agree with you two good posts, especially World, I do really believe that a lot of people are addicted to this game.
Last edited by xenris on 11/15/2012 10:20:48 AM
I would say that yes, it's completely fair. It's the way the economy works. Some cars sell amazingly well, but aren't quite as high end as others. They still deserve to sell and the things that got them those high sales, maybe a little lighter on the wallet while still delivering all the basics and some extra fun stuff as well makes it more appealing to customers. The people who designed that vehicle made a good product. They filled a demand, plain and simple. Just as mentioned above. So, yes a big ticket item isn't the best comparison but if your talking about simple economics Call of Duty completely deserves the sales because despite what many think it's not just advertising. There are many, many, many repeat customers of the franchise and clearly they found a demand that needed to be met. And they did so. Maybe it isn't the most ground breaking innovative thing that's ever hit consoles but so what? People wanted A they made A and raked in a ton of cash. Can't blame em for that. It's econ 101. Sorry if I just restated everything in Bens article, just my take on it.
I agree. I would never argue Call of Duty games are the best games of this or any generation — but a whole, whole lot of people that buy the game each year would disagree with me. I think I have what could be called "good taste" in games — but who's to say I'm not the one with weird or dumb preferences? The tens of millions of people who love Call of Duty aren't the outliers. I am. When it comes to entertainment, people should almost always go with what they like the most (I say "almost" because there is definitely something to be said for stepping outside of your comfort zone and trying something that's difficult for you from time to time.) The only thing that would be "wrong" would be for people to ignore what they like the most and try to fit into what I or any other "good taste" person says they should like. IMHO, of course.
I have a simple cliche' statement in response to this article.
Just because it's popular, doesn't make it right.
Apparently there's something "right" about it.
As to whether a game "deserves" to sell a lot is really up to an individual's interpretation of how much a company "deserves" to earn. I personally think that CoD is overhyped, overrated, and I personally will more than likely never play it, but again that's just my opinion. I just don't understand why people continually pay $60 every year for a new one. Then again, now that Assassin's Creed is annual as well, I'm the same way, but at least that series is actually evolving.
Anyways back to the point, I think it's impossible to determine if the game deserves these astronomically large sale records, because as you said, video games are just another business, and companies try their hardest to get the most bang for their buck. They appeal to the main majority of gamers, younger males who prefer FPSs (for the record I'm not being sexist haha), and that in turn just sells so much every year. I will admit though that in the end, Call of Duty games are very polished and their frame rate and gameplay is good, I'm just frustrated that beneath it all, it really is the same game every year.
I certainly can't find myself buying a new game for one franchise every year, I can't even afford to do that with my NBA 2K10, yes, 2K10, still playing My Player mode and still trying to win a ring even though I'm 7-time MVP.
If you can't beat em' join em'.
The way Activision advertise the game, can't say it doesn't.
Besides, not always the best sells the most, Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time but I doubt that critics would even put it in their top 50.
Justin Bieber is the biggest star in the world right now but the likes of Adele, Chris Brown and Ne-Yo definitely are of better qualities.
Hell, if CoD is running on Killzone engine or CryEngine there wouldn't be any debate on whether it deserves the sales it's getting.
CoD ain't flawless but it is a very fun game, addicting to most, and a very good multiplayer.
There's a reason why it keeps selling and breaking records, fans love it for what it is, rather than hoping for a new game engine.
My opinion on CoD is that while I think the improvement after each instalments is minor, it remains a very fun FPS to play, especially online.
You can say the same for Apple fans, why do you think they always queue up for the launch of new iPhones every year even though there's better choices out there?
Well, probably brand loyalty for that………..
of course they dont deserve the sales they get!
in every single way there are many games out there that do things better than what these do.
only reason why COD is selling so well is because it was the first game this gen to really show what next gen systems could do, it had a decent story, and fantastic MP!
that set off a chain reaction, people bought it because it was the best out there.
and then the sheep followed suit.
than the series went down the drain and the sheep kept rolling in for the expectations.
its almost as if a refusal to try anything else, hell half my friends list has not been playing anything but MW3 since it released!
and probably wont till 4 comes out.
even black ops is too much of a stray outside the fence…….
Well… everything deserves reward equal to the effort that is put into them. My issue comes from the fact that it really seems as though the effort isn't put into the productions. The gameplay has been more or less unchanged for the last five years and the campaigns have been simply designed, ushering you through linear levels with little thought for high quality enemy placements and the likes. There are relatively few improvements to the engine year over year and the multiplayer goes through an iterative process.
Maybe Modern Warfare deserved its sales because it revolutionised the genre, but everything since… not so much. Not when you have the likes of Deus Ex, Enslaved, XCOM or Sleeping Dogs that have clearly been more meticulously designed, with a wider array of gameplay mechanics, higher quality narratives and atmospheres that are more than capable of dragging you fully into the experiences.
They deserve to sell moderately well, but not to the point of obscenity that they always manage to.
Yeah the first Modern Warfare was a well needed update.
Give the people what they want …
Most people seem to be FPS fans – fans of other genres can do all the wailing and gnashing of teeth they want – while FPS fans drool over yet another COD masterpiece.
There just doesn't seem to be a middle ground – your either an FPS fan or your one of those other people – and you can get pretty good medication these days to help you overcome that …
wait… so if someone doesn't like CoD they aren't a fps fan?
People need medication for that?
God forbid there be any diversity among a population of gamers. All hell will break loose for differing opinions, right?
Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/15/2012 12:58:23 PM
people don't have to buy cod, but they do. as long as they do it will be made. really its as simple as that… love it then buy it, hate it then leave it. but don't bitch about it.
CoD sells because it is the only game that stays true to it's title. If you buy CoD, you will play CoD. Many great games out there true to it's formula sell well.
Gears of War
And so on.
But when a game tries to mimic CoD, or something it originally isn't, it tends to not sell well. I thought I was playing CoD when I booted up Socom 4. Personally, I don't like it when games make you rely on perks in order to give you an advantage. It's okay in CoD, but when other games mimic CoD in such way, then it ain't okay.
It should be straight up you, your weapon vs your enemy and his weapon.
I don't complain really, I just flow with the river. Sometimes I swim against it but its too powerful.
I believe CoD deserves every last penny it makes, but other games should stop trying to be CoD.
Last edited by Killa Tequilla on 11/15/2012 4:18:18 AM
I'm going to have to agree with snaaaake. Kind of falls in the line of "If it aint broke don't fix it". I am not the biggest call of duty fan and i'm not a fan at all of the MW series. Treyarch is a great developer and i think they deserve whatever sales come their way. As snaaaake says, they deliver what most people want in gaming. A fun experience. It's arcady and just fun in general. Not every person wants an in depth experience where you have to think real hard to finish a game. Some people just want mindless fun sometimes. Sure COD isn't perfect… Far from it actually, but you really can't deny it's charm. Believe it or not, not every game has to have really deep stories and mind blowing graphics to be good. Is COD overhyped? Absolutely… Is it a great fun game with endless hours of entertainment? Absolutely. That brings me to this… These days, it's hard to come up with money for every game. It's unfortunate but i'd rather buy a game like COD and get more than $60 worth of entertainment then a game like assassins creed or dishonored. I love both of these games by the way but i'd probably rather rent them from redbox for a couple days, complete them, then go back the games that give me my value for money. P.S. I'm more of a FIFA fan than anything. Anyways, i guess my point is, me as a father, who just makes it by every week, has to choose wisely when it comes to games now a days. It's truly unfortunate but it's just the way it is.
I've said it before CoD is sort of an enigma, it gets passes when other games do the same things and get burned. It releases overpriced map packs which people gobble up, and it hardly innovates year after year yet is marketed like it does. I would say that this is largely because of money being involved but that doesn't get us anywhere.
I think it doesn't deserve the sales for these reasons. They have basically found a formula to prey/exploit human behavior and it works every year without fail. Whether its the borderline brainwashing commercials and PR interviews, or the instant gratification nature of the multiplayer, this game knows how to keep you interested in the game and the franchise.
Does that mean its not a good, and enjoyable game? No CoD games are what they are and as an FPS junky they are just that to me. But they DO NOT deserve these sales when much better games FPS or not get lower review scores and sales.
Call of Duty is run down, old, saturated, rehashed, and the ONLY thing people ever get the game for is the online play which is pretty much the same thing for every one of them, so why would they ever deserve the sales they get? They deserve bankruptcy so that we can finally be free of mindless gamers that think they're cool because they've played the same game for the past 10 years…
they deserve the sales they get because they consistently produce a product people want. Just because you don't like the game those who do are "mindless gamers" you would like to finally be free off?
This this sort of arrogance is the reason people hate RPG fans.
Who hates RPG fans?
People hate rpg fans?
I think you mean, YOU hate rpg fans as a grotesque generalization. I'm afraid I'm unaware of this population of rpg haters you speak of. lol
Also, you realize you're doing the exact same thing you claim a little lower that people deserve a retort for…. right? You don't see the irony there?
Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/15/2012 12:56:33 PM
Was right with you until the "people hate RPG fans!" bit
I mean, no one is forcing these people to line up at midnight launches and throw their money at gamestop. Activision created a formula that works, and for the most part the games almost always deliver. So I'd say, yes, they do deserve the sales.
CoD does deliver quality (albeit with bad story-telling) campaigns that usually make me feel like I'm IN an action movie. And their MP is also pretty well done. In terms of modern military shooters, the quality is definetely there. I see where the hate comes from: they're shamelessly milking the franchise each and every year. But I usually have fun with my friends playing them, so I don't waste my time getting upset over the ridiculous sales numbers. Are there higher quality games on the market that don't sell as well? Yes, but they also appeal to a smaller audience. Activision is capitalizing on the "bro" culture.
Last edited by jimmyhandsome on 11/15/2012 12:24:59 PM
just a bit of tongue in cheek …
but the arrogance of some people who seem to think themselves superior because they don't play COD and think its fine to insult those of us who do with childish titles like "mindless" or "sheep" deserves a retort.
A reminder: I don't think people would care about CoD's sales being so great if other titles that are near perfection could guarantee breaking even, let alone making profit.
Who cares how much money Justin Bieber makes so long as Dream Theatre (or insert other favorite amazing band here) is still succeeding and doing well… know what I mean?
We've seen some AAA titles near perfection break even or worse. CoD may deliver on what people want, but even you have to admit it's not perfect nor progressive. It's only frustrating because the titles that deserve success sometimes don't get it while CoD can continue to roll on with relatively minimal advancements.
For example, the jump from MW2 to Blops2 over the years is not as great as the jump from Uncharted 1 was to Uncharted 2. Both titles improved, clearly, but there's proof for you that CoD can motor forward without even needing to update their engine. (Not that they need to.)
Look, I'm not saying CoD doesn't deserve success. I'm saying it doesn't promote progressiveness in the industry. Video games aren't alone in this phenominon. Most industries are held back by whatever the consumer demands. It's about money… not quality. It's only about quality if quality begets money! You know?
And that's the question this article raises. It's worth discussion whether you're a CoD fan or not.
By the way… people do buy it just to follow the herd, so to speak. I am one of them. If my friends didn't all get it, I wouldn't get it ever. No lie. It has no appeal to me as a lone video gamer, and I couldn't care less about playing with people I don't know. One thing is for sure… you would never find me playing without being in a party of people on my friendslist. I totally admit I only buy it because it's literally what all my friends get and I want to connect with them since we live all across the globe now.
its certainly a community game – people who wouldn't otherwise buy a PS3 will do so just to play COD with their buddies – so yes it is a herd thing up to a point – but how that hurts the rest of the industry I don't understand – I mean casual gamers who play COD likely are not interested in other genres , especially campaign based games – is it wrong for people not to particularly enjoy eg RPG games? Does that make them somehow inferior? No – its personal choice. Games that are more niche than mainstream (and yes the FPS genre has taken control of mainstream) will not do as well so long as less and less people find them enjoyable. People will buy what they enjoy most. If other developers jump on the fps bandwagon – that's because they need sales to exist – ie give the people what they want.
Blaming COD because other games/genres don't sell well is basically saying – "your game is too much fun – which means people won't buy my game Its just not fair – sniff sniff"
I see what you're saying, but I think the point is different than what you think some are saying. No it's not bad to dislike rpg's or other genres (including fps' by the way). The argument is all about business perspectives. CoD proves that by keeping a winning formula, you can make a lot of money.
These sorts of questions, and remember, they will be asked by developers who don't get rich (which is most developers):
How does this affect the industry?
Does it communicate to developers that they don't need to innovate?
Does it suggest sticking with sequels is better than coming out with new IPs?
Should other games try to be more like CoD? Would that make more money than if they don't try to copy-cat?
Or more seriously… if I want to make a brand new game with my own vision, would it be less of a risk to make it for a portable? Or maybe for iOS or facebook? Will I make more money by putting in less effort?
I think the article is trying to touch on the fact that it's all about money at the end of the day. It's a business. And if it's all about just giving people what they want, how can the industry ever experience positive change if no one makes an attempt at change? It might not even be because no one wants to change or innovate… it could be because no one wants to risk it.
If it were me, I know I'd look at something like Kings of Amalur and what happened to their company and think… hell no… I'm not trying that. Even if I wanted to. I would stick to sequels of my successful stuff or create something that is safe. Only if you have a lot of money might you ever take a risk.
That's where the question of "Does CoD hurt the industry" comes from. It's not really about "CoD iz teh suckz!"
Know what I mean? It's not CoD is ruining video games… it's "is CoD's -SUCCESS- ruining video games". See the difference?
Last edited by Underdog15 on 11/15/2012 4:24:03 PM
I'd like to modify your statement
"your game is too much fun – which means people won't buy my game Its just not fair – sniff sniff"
to the more accurate
"your game is too popular- which means that production studios will find less incentive to create the games we love- sniff sniff"
Yes many of us do tend to whine quite a bit, but that's only because what we like doesn't exist anymore. Also I appreciate that other people find COD fun, which is all well and good, but many RPG-lovers really do not find it fun at all (really, we're not just saying that- we actually do not enjoy it).
Also you are write in that some people think them selves to be superior to COD lovers (I was one of those people) and yes those people are wrong in believing that.
Basically to sum up, RPG fans are sad because no one makes their games anymore. Human instinct compels as to some how explain this tragedy and so many people verbally flame COD.
Then its time to rally the RPG troops and buy into the genre in numbers so it will actually be profitable to make RPG games – instead of whining about Activision for giving their fans what they want.
Do you not know how to reply to a post here? I will reply to all of your points here. First it is not that less and less people want games that aren't selling a lot, its the base number of copies that need to sell keeps going up. There are still just as much if not more RPG, RTS and other genre lovers out there today as there were 10 years ago. The problem is with the corporate nature of the industry.
Second its bad for the industry because less devs/publishers are willing to take risks now, and indeed more and more companies are trying to find ways to make there profit margins go up, which is why we have the ridiculous DLC we have now a days when 5-10 years ago devs crammed all they could on the disc to entice gamers to buy the game and show it had value. Most games released within the last several years severely lack value, and usually end up costing you 120+ dollars if you want all the DLC. Not all games but a lot of the big players are doing this.
If kickstarter is any indication RPGs are plenty profitable, the problem comes when you get corporations involved.
So if there are just a many RPG fans as ever there were – and it is therefore logical that a profit can be made by not just making an FPS – how come Activision is the the big baddie here for making this FPS game the masses want?. If the base number of copies needed to turn a profit has risen – then I guess RPG developers need to make better games to sell more – or just take the easy way out and blame COD
To appease the minority – should Activision stop providing the rest of us what we crave?
I love new maps every few months – the DLC keeps the experience fresh and exciting. So do plenty of others – hence DLC sells bazillions. How is this such a bad thing – the many hundreds of hours online gaming I get for $60 and $50 seasons DLC pass is fantastc value for money for me. When I used to drink I'd blow that in one night easy – now I get a full years entertainment.
I hope I speak for all mature RPG lovers when I say that our general view is that
*COD is not bad
*Acitivision is not bad
*Acitivision should not appease the minority by suspending production of their gaming products
*There is nothing wrong with people enjoying COD and buying DLC
*The less mature RPG-lovers direct their anger over the death of their beloved genre towards COD
I want you to imagine for a moment that you grew up playing COD and that during those days gaming wasn't so mainstream. Now imagine that over one measly generation of gaming the production of any game remotely similar in style to COD was ceased because RPG was extremely popular and every gaming studio out there was scrambling to modify their products to be more RPG-esque. How would you feel? The thing that you loved so much is dead and all these strangers have taken over your hobby.
Goodness learn how to reply to the comment your responding to. Its hard to know who you are talking to. Your completely missing the point, not blaming CoD but CoD had a part in it. Clearly I never said they should stop giving you what you crave your group is clearly addicted to the easy aim assisting, instant gratification, atta-boy, pat on the back multiplayer experience that CoD provides to stroke and tickle the reward part of your brain, while you actually achieved very little.
RPG developers are left out because big publishers wont take them on because even if they sell 1-2 million units that isn't enough for them because CoDs standard and the corporate standard of these publishers has bumped up the number of units needed to be sold to be profitable. And if they "step" up as you say it wouldn't matter because if they tried to appeal to the larger audience one of two things will happen and we have already seen this. Either the game sells to the fans and is mediocre because the elements designed to draw in the FPS fans failed, or the fans don't like it because it strays too far from what they want in an RPG. FF13, ME2-ME3(no I'm not the only one who was pissed about these) DA1-DA2, Resident Evil, and there are more I'm forgetting but these are examples where they either failed to sell, or sold well but to not the fans but the lowest common denominator.
I'm glad you enjoy wasting your money on DLC that should be free, and playing on matchmaking that should have been upgraded to servers years ago. Your paying them all this money and they stiff you where it counts.
Just because it sells a "bazillions" doesn't mean its ethical or good for the industry. Maps have been free in PC FPS games up until CoD decided hey we can charge money to these people and they will gobble it up.
Remember McDonalds is one of the most successful fast food restaurants in the world but that does not indicate that it is high in quality, or is good for you.
OK fair enough
although I grew up playing the adventure forerunner of Uncharted – the original Activision blockbuster – Pitfall – on my Atari 2600 !
Im sorry you cant keep up.
MacDonalds? what the hell is wrong with MacDonalds – don't tell your a BK fanboy.
As to what I "Crave" – I enjoy a game I can jump into for 20 minutes, then turn off when im required elsewhere. I want a game that my friends who are older like myself can all play together and have a laugh. I want new maps that to me are great value for money. I don't need games to give me a sense of achievement – you see I have a real life for that. I just want games that I can sit down with my scotch and fool around with my buddies.
I understand other people seek gratification using games that allow them to use video game dialogue, and choosing the ingame converstaion etc – I just go to the bar and interact with real people when I want dialogue – or listen to the wife.
Each to their own I guess.