Support NeoGAF

[Reizo Ryuu]

I'll take optional $25 map packs once every 3 - 6 months

It's 50$ like I said, and it's not just maps, it's weapons too, basically everything you get for free now every month and keeps the player base from fragmenting.

a shitty free map every so often.

It's a "fuck you, got mine"

You wanting paid content updates instead is indeed exactly "fuck you, got mine", no need to advocate anti-player gatekeeper practices.

 

[stickkidsam]

It's 50$ like I said, and it's not just maps, it's weapons too, basically everything you get for free now every month and keeps the player base from fragmenting.

Why does a game need tons of free shit after you buy it? I don't expect free special feature DLC 3 months after I buy a Blu Ray. I didn't need a brand new weapon every month to keep playing Halo 3. I just loved the game. If anything, I've seen tons of free stuff cripple games because of the impact on game and matchmaking balance.

Getting free stuff is nice, but you don't need micro transactions to make that happen.

You wanting paid content updates instead is indeed exactly "fuck you, got mine", no need to advocate anti-player gatekeeper practices.

lmao ah yes because charging $15 to get a skin or armor or even a new gun you used to be able to unlock by playing the game is so player friendly. Gotta love having to pay for unlockables on launch day. I'm sure it's totally pro-player to have nickel and diming be made a foundational part of the game design.

In what world is paying for NEW content anti-player? Do you hear yourself? What about all the people who just can't play the game because they can't afford the $50, $60, or $70? Do they not matter? Seems like anything that isn't free to play is anti-player.

 

[FalconPunch]

Personally, I wish map packs would come back.

 

[Success]

It's perfectly valid to compare, praise or criticize art between the generations.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, and I bet you are over 30 years old.

We will all grow old with NeoGAF. I started here when I was young and I will probably be here in my senior years.

 

[Three]

So, we're comparing the multiplayer component from today against the Campaigns from prior entries for... reasons? Not sure I understand the point, frankly.

The tonal difference between BLOPS6's multiplayer and BLOPS6's campaign is pretty wide - because multiplayer, like zombies, has been its own thing for a long time. COD's multiplayer hasn't tried to be realistic since Modern Warfare 2 on the Xbox 360, where it was already morphing into an arena shooter with military trappings.

The campaign in old COD was the same characters as the multiplayer portion before these paid skins took over with glowing purple flames and Minaj. The reason he used campaign was just for the witty remarks in them.

Go play classic COD 4 multiplayer and see if you see this silliness in it with regards to guns or characters. Today's games jumped the shark trying to sell you things that look different but stupid.

 

[Mistake]

World at war you could blow limbs off. This is like if YouTube made an FPS, gross

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Why does a game need tons of free shit after you buy it? I don't expect free special feature DLC 3 months after I buy a Blu Ray.

You can't be seriously comparing a movie with an online multiplayer game, I'm sure I don't have to explain that these types of games need regular content updates or the player base craters because there's always something else releasing or updating that is competing for their time, not a 2-3 hour one and done like a film smh .

lmao ah yes because charging $15 to get a skin or armor or even a new gun you used to be able to unlock by playing the game is so player friendly.

There's nothing that gives a competative advantage, guns are free, and there are many unlockable skins as well; this is actually the opposite of the paid content update model because everything was locked behind a paywall, including new guns.
Doesn't sound like you've actually played cod recently and are just talking out of your ass.

In what world is paying for NEW content anti-player?

In the world of online multiplayer games it's completely anti-player because it fragments the playerbase, and whenever they do get to play together, they have to deal with paywalled weapons they don't have access to.
All updates being free means everyone has access to the same things and everyone can play together at all times, if you can't see how this is the most player friendly option, then nobody can help you and this conversation has run its course.

 

[Hypereides]

Seriously, fuck the Fortnite effect on games. Not just in CoD, but all games. Not every game needs this shit. Developers are trying too hard to chase a weird trend that doesn't belong.

Blame it on the people up above who push it down on the developers to follow and implement. Some marketing/business analytics teams really need a shuffle with the amount of foolishness they push and impose. You can bet it annoys some developers in their respective teams too. Especially, when what they push makes little logical sense to them or detract from the overall game.

Not say there aren't some developers who openly embrace some of this ridiculousness.

 

[chakadave]

World at war you could blow limbs off. This is like if YouTube made an FPS, gross

I just watched the video. I had no idea it had all that crap.

What was the last one that was deceent and had the serious vibes? Even in multiplayer?

 

[DaciaJC]

I just watched the video. I had no idea it had all that crap.

What was the last one that was deceent and had the serious vibes? Even in multiplayer?

Modern Warfare 2019 was very solid and largely maintained a serious tone in multiplayer. Had a handful of unconventional skins but most fit the theme, there weren't any zany maps like Chuck E Cheese or whatever, no stupid looking emotes.