Claimed:Beketov CoDCast #41

[Beketov 9,025]

 

We’re back in Camper City...I mean MWR for another episode of the CoDCast. In this one we show why I don’t snipe and answer questions from @Phil and @Devise.

 

*For Sokolov

[Devise 4,475]

@Beketov Just got a chance to listen to this. Surprised you haven't played more Overwatch but fair enough. I've had no issues with the way it plays on PS4, but it's such a different playing shooter that playing the different characters kind of requires you to understand the mechanics on a few layers more than just trying to get kills. 

 

I also didn't realize you were already drafted to Toronto, so that was what I was implying. My bad, it was because I saw you were on my VHLM team I think.  

 

As for the big CoD argument. I don't know man I think the argument that it is something that will happen (a consistent platform) versus releasing games every year just from a cost perspective. CoD's peak is over, anyone who is anyone knows that. Releasing those big budget AAA games ever year are very expensive, and I just don't know how long Activision decides that is the best way to go. Especially considering the rumors and murmors in the industry about them even switching from releasing one ever year and exploring new options.

 

I don't think the "subscription model" is really what I was referring to. I don't think that is the future at all. I think it is for some games, but even then I don't know. MMO's other than WoW have had to stop doing it and go free to play in a lot of cases because the free to play model with micro transactions actually earns more revenue and a healthy player base than the purely subscription model. But I think your going to see more games as a platform. Look at Hitman last year. We on are consoles that can do a lot, but often it takes a serious amount of development time to do so. 

 

So when I talk about CoD releasing it's campaign or other modes piece meal (which was my intended words) I never meant as a fully featured game for $80. I'll lay out here what I kinda mean

 

Call of Duty: The Whole Fucking Package releases as a platform. It costs say $80.00. It comes with a campaign, some co op maps, and a multiplayer mode your usual. But that game then becomes the platform. Any future content is no longer treated as a $80 release, single player or otherwise. Access to that future content is charged based on the size and development of it, and it allows them then to package up season passes, or subscription services offers to those who don't want to purchase that content piece meal. At that point the three pronged studio approach they have could be utilized a bit more effectively. That is to say instead of having to develop their own MP components all the time, and try to fine tune changes that have very little impact (I've felt that way since the original Black Ops to be fair) and put all that focus onto the other things they develop aka any campaign or what have you. The other benefit of this is it puts all the CoD players in one place. All logged into the same service. You'd stop segregating the userbase based on if they liked an old one or what have you etc. As for the Prestige system stuff, I feel like that would have to be more openly expanded, and set to an open ended experience with the appropriate unlocks. But I mean in a micro transaction world all you need to is mimic the F2P shit of another type of currency, and grinding out in the games earns you said currency and suddenly you have your loop. 

 

I just think the evidence for how MP is going says this is the direction. If you look at all the big MP titles now, you mentioned some Counter Strike, League, Dota, Overwatch (Or any other Blizzard game). It's very much this idea that it's a platform so you only have to pay once to get it. It's very much a lot of cosmetics and other bullshit they charge for to keep income flowing, and then depending on the game there are expansions or additions to that platform at a price as well. 

 

Considering the fading status of CoD as the premiere shooter, that Blizzard is doing a lot of this stuff already and Blizzard is a partner with Activison I just don't see how it doesn't go that direction. One of the other benefits of that approach is that sequels mean more because of how long those platforms tend to last. As opposed to Activision current model that continues to hurt the brand with every release really, even when the releases are good just because on a per year basis they have mined that CoD gold so hard. Obviously I'm not saying CoD's userbase is like, done, but it's certainly not at the peak it was and constant releases I think only do more to hurt that experience. Especially one every year, as full release eventually people are just going to be like "nah". Where as getting people on the platform while you still got em hooked seems like the smarter play.

 

Some good discussion though and thanks for answering the questions. Was nice to see some old MW 1 played as well, I have some fond memories of those maps. You need to knife more when people get close to you, since that epic one hit melee kill.  

Edited February 21, 2017 by Devise

[Corco 1,237]

Claimed