Community: Message List - Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:43:39 GMT

I'm also not doubting that you don't know what you're talking about.

If I don't know about something, I make that disclosure in whatever I have to say.

For example, I am not a programmer, a designer, nor a developer. But I do know this - those that ARE and have been posting in these threads? Most of them make sense and actually put out information that can be verified.

It just so happens that I have an in-law that has a master's in game design and I've had a lot of conversations with him.

The bottom line is this: Dedicated Servers, while they might "help," are NOT the solution. Knowing this, developers ask the next logical question - because it is an economics question - will the bring ENOUGH help to JUSTIFY the expense.

Overwhelmingly the answer is NO.

So why do some do it and others do not?

Simply so that they can tell the potential customers, "Hey! Buy our product - we use dedicated servers!"

And they are not lying when they tell you, "It REDUCES lag related issues."

But it does not solve those issues.

There is NEVER one or two people on a game design/development team that is critical to the creation and production of a game. NEVER. To think there is a "god" of game design and development is akin to saying the NY Yankees will never win another World Series withou Alex Rodriguez. Really? I doubt that. In fact, I'll make a prediction: the year after he leaves the Yankees, the Yankees will win the World Series.

The reason I talk about the design and development team is because not every team is all that great.

I think Battlefield probably has a pretty good team. But the man in charge of that team is misguided. He's too focused upon "beating" Call of Duty. Thus he spends money on shyt that does not matter - for no other reason but to get people to convert to Battlefield instead of Call of Duty.

Frankly, I DGAS which game is "better" in the view of the community. I actually like the concept Battlefield far more than I do COD. But my experience with Battlefield is not good. The lag was just as bad as it is with COD. Finding a match was difficult (granted I was playing BFBC2 - but it was well prior to the current release). The greatest disappointment of all was discovering there are what? Three maps? Are you serious??

Pass. I'll stick with Call of Duty for the time being.

There is a lot of thought - A LOT OF THOUGHT - that goes into any multi-million dollar venture. To sit in these forums and think that decisions, like whether or not to use dedicated servers, are made lightly and without deep, deep consideration and research is simply naive and shows a lack of genuine knowledge of any business, and particularly the business in question - game development.

As for why MW3 was not nominated for GotY, I'll give you an example of what happens when media nominates the same "best of" product year after year after year. Years ago Motor Trend got into the habit of naming Toyota and GM "This of the Year!" Woohoo! Yay! The problem was that SOME - not all, but some - of those products were, being blunt - pure effing junk. Notice Motor Trend rarely, if ever, does a "down the road" follow up on "Cars of the Year"?

What happens is both the industry AND manufacturers finally got fed up with it. Car makers found themselves designing and building cars that would make Motor Trend happy. Well what they finally realized, especially in Ford's case, was that no matter how great a car you made? Motor Trend would still nominate someone else's car. Worse, the public simply was not buying cars that met all of Motor Trend's standards.

Now some reviewers realize the "favorite" trap. As a result, they mix up thier standards now and then and, what do you know, a new brand is the "best of."

And, frankly, it should be that way and you want it to be that way. Why? Because you're absolutely right - when you get down to the brass tacks, there really has not been any massive changes to the Call of Duty franchise since COD4: MW.

But there is a business reason behind that, believe me. It all has to do with economic theory. Each title represents a short run business plan. They are destined to lose interest among consumers. Thus, each title is really nothing more than a tweak of production.

In the long run, yes, the series will lose interest and fall by the way side. When? Who knows. Key will be a "better" product.

Right now, frankly, BF is in the right direction - but it still is not a better product. Right now they have a ton of options when it comes to weapons. But who cares? That's like playing rust over and over and over again but all you ever really change up is which weapons you use.

I'm not that impressed with MW3, to be frank. The series needs a massive facelift - like what MW1 brought to the title.

To me, who cares which game is better right now? This is definitely not the future of gaming.

That's why I keep saying the next generation of consoles leaves everything up in the air - including Battlefield.

I tell you what. If the next-gen consoles have just twice the computing power they have now plus are more capable of host-serving (like we have now)?

Then, yes, Battlefield is probably going to take over Call of Duty - unless, like I said, massive changes come to COD.

But I really think they are either going to have to skip a year of production OR bring in a third development team.

My bets are they will do neither until they actually see a huge loss of sales. Then they'll skip a year, maybe two, of releasing a title and, hopefully then, they'll re-invent the FPS again.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:14:54 GMT

QUAAAAAD post (and a 5th below it?)!

Anyway, I agree. My post was more than about the Dedicated Servers, but that seemed to be the big thing that people wanted to discuss, and even I got caught up in it.

This game does have many issues. Only time will tell who was right in this debate.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:14:34 GMT

Dedicated servers may cure the lag problem but it won't perform miracles. Lag is just one of the many problems MW3 has. How about the spawn system...which is garbage btw and also the chat quality as well. MW3 just generated $1 billion dollars. It did that because I'm sure EVERYONE thought it was going to be better than Black Ops(year old game). I did, that's why I got the Hardened edition...which was a HUGE WASTE of $$$! If Infinity Ward makes the next COD game I'm DEFINITELY NOT getting it.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:09:13 GMT

Dedicated servers may cure the serious lag problem but it won't perform miracles. Lag is just one of the many problems MW3 has. How about the spawn system...which is garbage btw and also the chat quality as well. I didn't expect MW3 to be perfect obviously but I didn't expect it to be WORSE than Black Ops. The game just generated $1 billion dollars. It did that because I'm sure EVERYONE thought it was going to be better than Black Ops(year old game). I did, that's why I got the Hardened edition...which was a HUGE WASTE of $$$! If Infinity Ward makes the next COD game I'm DEFINITELY NOT getting it.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:08:16 GMT

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:07:37 GMT

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:06:41 GMT

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:43:25 GMT

Who exactly did I insult, or try to insult? I'm not sure if you're just seeing what you want to see or not, but I've read through my post, and there is nothing insulting towards anyone posted.

If you're going to accuse me of doing something and are going to make a big deal about it, post your evidence to support your claim.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:32:44 GMT

I knew it was too good to be true. You're just not going to make a comment without trying to insult someone.

Too bad these forums don't have and ignore button.

www.vfinance.com

There you go. Exhaustive list of venture capital firms and angel investors.

You know so much about making a game that's profitable, do it. Take a look at, oh, half a dozen firms listed on that site. You'll notice almost all of them are looking for the next greatest software - which includes games.

There are literally THOUSANDS of companies ready, willing - EAGER - to invest money in the "right" way to produce a billion dollar game.

In other words, finding the money to do it is easy.

Go do it, Mr. Brilliant.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:10:12 GMT

I'm not suggesting that dedicated servers are going to turn a massive profit. I realize that it's going to cost them a pretty penny to invest and provide them. I'm also not doubting that you don't know what you're talking about.

My point however is very clear:

While you may believe it to be ecnomic suicide for Activision to invest in them (even if they intend to do so in the future), we must consider that NOT taking the steps necessary to secure the franchise is going to result in a dead franchise by the time they actually get around to doing it.

As I've said before, Call of Duty is going to reach a point where it no longer can sell on the name alone. What are they going to do when that point is reached? What are they going to do when their flagship series becomes the next Guitar Hero? Without Call of Duty, activision is going to have to go back to relying on Tony Hawk to keep them afloat.

They could put out the money today, and start moving the franchise towards a new direction (in terms of technology), and make sure that everything is there to secure the series, or they can keep sitting on it while everyone else puts in the investment ahead of them, and watch their flagship series go down.

It may not happen in the next couple of years, but it will be soon. I would like to think that not even securing a nomination in Goty shows that, and losing to a game in "Best Multiplayer" whose only MP component is a 2-player co-op mode.

I think we can all agree (even if we disagree about dedi's) that it's not a good sign when they can't win the one category their entire franchise is built upon.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:55:41 GMT

Everyone says servers are too expensive b/c Call of Duty has more users, thats BS, the Call of Duty line has more users therefore more money to spend on servers. The servers would be proportinate to the # of people that bought the game. Why does everyone defend this game? It's gone to the dumpster and we are the ones that paid for it. You guys are probably happy with the promises they made to us on Elite too? We all paid 40-50 bucks for Elite and 1/2 of it still doesnt work...I hope they plan on extending my one year membership from the time that it is 100% operational....I know I paid 100% of the money that they wanted for this garbage.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:52:32 GMT

Kastro ...

I appreciate a well-thought out, rational response.

That said, I guess my bias is that I've run a company and have been involved with management decisions for over 20 years (yes, even when I was in high school). Add onto that I just finished a micro-economics course.

To explain how companies think ... man, that takes a lot of time and space. If you want to send me your email, I can scan and send you a copy of my notes from the past four months of learning about basic economic principles and theory.

Trust me: Battlefield IS following the exact same basic business model that Call of Duty is following. They have to. If not, they'll go bankrupt and pretty damned fast. In fact, there is no guarantee they won't fail at their current business plan anyway.

But here's the important thing:

Just because a company is investing a lot of money in its game, that does not mean the franchise is profitable.

Up to BF3, the game has probably been minimally profitable. There was a time when i would have said "marginally" but now that I have instilled in my brain a new meaning for that term, I can't bring myself to use it. Marginal Profit is NOT the relative size of the overall profit of a firm/game. Marginal Profit is the amount of profit for the next unit produced. Arggh.

Anyway. Investment does not reflect profitability. A lot of people make that mistake and lose many, many millions every day.

Look, the bottom line is that the next generation of consoles are due, maybe even past due, to hit the market. Battlefield is making an investment now for no other reason but in an attempt to gain market share. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that BF3 is a net loser for Dice/whomever the parent company is.

It's kind of like they are trying to have a price war right now. But no one is changing the actual price so what they do instead is increase the number of features - whether or not those features actually benefit the consumer does not matter - it is the perception that you get more for your money.

Economics 101. Not rhetorically, for real. Take the course at your local community college. You'll see what I'm talking about.

It would be economic suicide for Activision to invest in dedicated servers at this time. I promise you.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:26:42 GMT

No need for dedicated servers, current system is fine. I live in a remote country and would suffer by having dedicated servers. So the host has a lsight advantge, big deal, use your skills and conquer.

i wil lsay that personally MW3 is not my cup of tea and I much prefer Black Ops. I think the map layouts are more appealing. Lets just hope that the new map pack for MW£ gives us some decent maps

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:55:17 GMT

nuttin2say wrote: <lots of stuff>

What you're failing to understand is that despite how much they're putting out, lesser companies with less money are putting out much higher quality games. I like to use BF3 because it's the closest competitor. How much do you suppose they've put out into their title? Last I heard, on marketing alone, they were authorizing $100 million on Marketing. And despite having less money on return than CoD, they're giving away their first map pack free (to pre-order customers), running dedicated servers, had a Beta, and are working on additional titles.

When it comes to Call of Duty, let's not forget that they have multiple map packs they're releasing. If we assume even 4 DLC packs per year, at $15/pack, we're looking at people spending an additional $60 per year on the game. Assuming just 1 million people, cross-platform, buy those DLC packs, that's still an additional $60 Million for that year alone.

However, the question "Is it worth the investment" does deserve some discussion. Considering that even with todays technology we still haven't overcome the hurdle of people with barely a 1mb/s upload being allowed to host, the constant server disconnects, and the number of latency issues, I would say it's at least worth a try. Certainly it couldn't be any worse off than it is today.

Clearly what we have today doesn't work on any serious level. It might work in the sense that people can play, but the trade off of all the connection related issues that the game gets in return, THAT is what I would say isn't worth the investment.

Even more so, I'm willing to bet that there enough people out there who would be willing to pay an increased price in the overall title if it meant supporting Dedicated Servers and a better overall experience. So it's not like the cost isn't going to be met or is going to make Activision go broke any time soon.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:39:19 GMT

Dedicated Servers will not help the issues CoD is having. Lag will always be there and Dedicated Servers are expensive and you should not compare CoD to the other FPS.

. Unlike the other games CoD has a significantly more amount of players on there games and the more people log and save into the servers the more expensive it becomes.

Not to mention that they would have to close down the servers for the previous CoDs because it would be quite overwhelming the pocket books.

Gross sells does not equal Profit. Yeah they made 2 billion dollars but they lose alot of it to sell, advertise, product making, shipping, it goes on.

BF3 the most recent FPS has Dedicated servers BUT they charge you just to play the game multiplayer. It was about $10 and sense CoD is far bigger than Battlefield I can see them charging like 20-30 dollars just to log into a multiplayer you might not like and knowing companies they charge you even more so it would come out possibly more than that.

Beta testing? Well they kind of did have a beta test at the CoD XP and it seems like none of these issues we are seeing was around then.

BF3 had a beta test months before it came out and that game still had problems.

Guns are different and the maps where made like this on purpose which is also different so how exactly is this the same experience? If it was I would be going 30-4 every game and of course your going to get tired of a game. Most CoD fans play CoD for hours a day and after a while you are going to get bored and this is the same for any game, movie, and entertainment.

I dont understand your logic. You think adding dedicated servers and beta testing will fix anything? A beta could run fine but on launch day it could do **** and thats exactly what happend in BF and it will most likely always happen.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:33:13 GMT

Here we go again. Same people. Same complaint. Same lack of facts. Same lack of economic knowledge. Same lack of common sense.

No, dude, you have not done your research.

Gross sales does not equal gross profit.

Watch the credits to MW3. You'll discover that with this title alone there are easily 1000 people and organizations involved with producing MW3. If, on average, each person was only earning $30,000 a year - no including the taxes the corporation has to pay for simply employing a person - you're looking at between $30 million and $50 million worth of salary alone.

And I'd venture to say that, since most of those working on this project live in the most expensive small towns in California, they are probably making well over 30 grand a year.

I'd say payroll alone on a typical COD title runs in the $300 million range - per year. At $1 billion a title, you've just spent 30% of the revenues.

Then there are the licenses ... the facilities ... the travel to see how weapons and other things work in the real world (to bring that element of realism that no one believes is a factor in the game ... there's the equipment to actually program the game ... I'd say that's easily another $200 - 250 million. But we'll go with $200 million just to make things easy for people to understand.

There's the insurance and lawyers that have to be paid - because even though none of you think it is possible to sue a game maker, it is. There's legal BS that has to be fulfilled and if it isn't, the company can be sued - even the government can sue the company. Anyway, figure another, eh, $50 million there.

Ok. So we are now at $550 million to produce the game.

Oh. Wait. There's the marketing, as well. Drop another $50 million there (and I am fairly confident that is being conservative).

$600 million to produce a game that will generate $1 billion or so in gross revenues.

$1 billion in gross revenue minus $600 million in gross costs = $400 million in gross profit.

Gross profit. Not net profit.

You're president, Unkle Obama?

He gets 35% of the $400 million and the state of California gets another 10%.

Net profit?

$220 million.

And that's probably underestimating all the costs involved.

Investment = $780 million

Total profit = $220 million

Not that great of a return, truth be known.

Worth investing in a bank of servers that are good for only one game release?

Pass.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:10:50 GMT

You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about with my post. I'm not talking about your basic software development glitches. I could care less about that. Glitches happen.

Read my actual OP and you'll know more about what I'm discussing here. It's about the fact that year after year, we face the SAME issues repeatedly. The same mistakes are constantly made, and the overall design of the game changes very little. With the exception of CoD4 -> MW2, there hasn't been a real drastic overhaul to the series in the last 3 years. There's very little innovation being done. With Black Ops, we got Theater Mode, and MW3 we got a new Kill Streak system. That's about it in terms of innovation to the series. The majority of changes are simply new weapons/maps, and restructuring the same perks we've used pretty much throughout the series.

Dedicated Servers, Beta Testing. 2 very basic things that any FPS should be using these days... and apparently the major FPS titles, with the exception of Call of Duty, DO use them. Are they flawless titles? No, but they don't encounter the same kind of issues as Call of Duty either.

At this point, I run the risk of just re-hashing what I've already said, so I'll leave it at that. The overall point is:

This series is going nowhere fast, and if something doesn't change, not even the name is going to be able to sell the copies needed. It's going to take more than 1 decent tweak per game to hold people's interest. Clearly this is the case seeing as how despite 4 DLC packs a year, people get tired of it that quickly.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:56:26 GMT

OP just stop talking like you know what your talking about.

Of course there are going to be problems and you expect way to much from a video game that YOU do not like. If people did not like the game they would not play it but it does not seem to play like that at all right? Why do you waste your time coming to the forums ranting on about the game is not being done in quality.

They worked they ass off for MW2 from COD4 and 3arc did a good job bringing us new stuff with Black Ops. Yeah they both had they problems but its only a problem to you because you and a selected few other people can not get over yourself and realise its not the same game. Yeah it might seem like they dont try but its obvious they are trying to fix the errors they made.

I mean come on now. Lets look at BF3 which was in development for multiple years beyond CoD and that game has glitches and problems to date. Im not going to waste anymore time typing up this post because your never going to understand whats really happening.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:45:36 GMT

platinumb wrote:

The mods moved it to OT even though it was on topic? Yea, I smell something fishy with that.

And yes, Kastro, you are right on point with everything you said. The only reason I play CoD as much is because of friends and being a completist. If I lacked CoD fanatics, I would be on plenty of other games.

Anyone with common sense will know that they only care about your wallet at this point. They repackage their goods and call it another name. I am a little disappointed with everyone who went to the CoD XP and claimed the game to be amazing and not the "MW2.5" that people called it because it fits its this game perfectly with so much copypasta from past CoDs.

That's pretty much the point I'm at right now. The only reason I even picked up MW3 was because of my friends who wanted me to get it, otherwise I wouldn't have even picked it up. Call of Duty in general just isn't as appealing as it was 4 or 5 years ago because it's the same re-hashed experience again and again.

As I've said before, the very fact that they have to put out a title every single year, despite 3 or 4 DLC packs each year, just to keep people interested should say something about this series.

Honestly, I want to see the series go somewhere.. I'd like to see something good come of it. It has a ton of potential, but whether the blame is laid on Activision or the developers, something has to change. Either Activision needs to give them another year to work on the game, or they need to start trying to take it into a different direction. It's not going to be long before the title alone stops selling copies.

Re: Want to know why you guys weren't even NOMINATED for GOTY?

donotreply@activision.com — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:55:54 GMT

True. I only enjoy MW3 when I'm playing with friends now. I'm still riotshield all over the place.

Oh and I have yet to read any of these posts besides the one Plati just made cuz it lacks intrest to me at this time.