Call of Duty and Battlefield have been going toe to toe with each other to become the most fan favored first person shooter for about a decade now, and in the long run, Call of Duty has been the winner if sales are to be considered. Though the COD trailer may have been one of the most disliked videos on YouTube, and even though Battlefield has gained some of the most positive attention lately, here are some reasons of why COD:IW may trump BF.
The VR industry has long awaited sign of true Call of Duty VR games, but will it ever happen? And does it need to happen?
I don't think it's in Activision's DNA to stick their neck out on something like this unfortunately. They've got a surefire winner with COD so why risk a winning formula.
fwiw, Firewall Zero Hour was more fun than COD for me, but obviously didn't have the same user base and budget
I wonder hypothetically if a non-VR COD style game were to integrate VR players, could you even balance such a thing out. I'm guessing no.
Highly unlikely at the moment. Executives are more concerned with being bought by Daddy Warbucks and golden parachutes than moving VR forward. They had a chance last gen but released a spaceship, combat demo instead. COD would increase VR awareness but if they were bought, the same thing that happened to other developers under Microsoft would happen to them.
Just consider, before being bought by Microsoft, Bethesda had Skyrim and Wolfenstein Cyber pilot. Ninja Theory had Hell Blade, Dexed and helped with Vader Immortal. Inxile had Mage's Tale. Double Fine had Psychonauts. ID Software had Doom VFR and Doom 3. Compulsion had We Happy Few: Uncle Jack Live.
Ever since the purchase of those developers, zero VR games announced or released. And since Microsoft continues to shun VR, Activision games like COD wouldn't have VR either under them.
Firewall, Crossfire, Pavlov, and whoever else makes an FPS game in VR, will have to do for the time being. Maybe Sony will make one like Killzone or Resistance in VR. Also surprised that Valve didn't put Counterstrike in VR.
I think the experience would be so different to traditional CoD and share so little with it that there would be no point in pinning the CoD label on it. I think Pavlov is about as close as you’ll get
This week's Deals with Gold selection on Xbox has rubbed certain Xbox fans the wrong way, as several Call of Duty titles are still ludicrously priced - despite being discounted by up to 67% off over the next few days.
How is 20 dollars for X360 call of duty games "ludicrously" overpriced?
And with Activision's lawer bills skyrocketing at the moment you are not going to be seeing deep discounts for a bit.
Pretty sure that's the sale off that's 60% off. After the sale ends that 360 game is still listed at $49.99, right not its $19.99 because the 60% off.
It's nice to see the Xbox community stand up for themselves though. That's been needed for a long time.
Lawsuits don’t cost billions, they’re ALWAYS going to be fine for money.
They could stack their bills on the ground and fill half the continent of Africa at this point.
Because Xbox fans are so used to playing games on the Xbox EBT subscription service, the idea of paying anything for a game seems ludicrous to them.
You pay for the service.
Do you have Amazon Video?
Hulu?
Netflix?
It's a subscription service. Not a charity. You're literally going at people over the idea of using a pro consumer service, and that's the real joke here.
When records were sold, they were eventually replaced by tapes, which cost less to manufacture, but more to buy. Then CDs came along and were cheaper to manufacture, but cost more at retail. Digital, of course, is the cheapest yet, but billion dollar corporations want to charge the same.
And no, that money is not going to the person sitting in the chair actually making the game.
It is pure and utter greed from people who don't need any more money.
"Many have also noted how the multiplayer in several of these titles is either dead or filled with hackers, meaning players are paying a hefty sum for a short campaign and potentially some zombie modes."
With these clear truths the decades older COD games should be permanently 19.99 regular price and sale prices 7.99 minimum
Typo sale prices 2.99 minimum and 9.99 maximum. Older COD tiles seven years old or older should never be over 20 dollars regular price
I have paid less than 3 dollars for some AAA PS4 games, old 360 CoD games should not be $20
Any fps game runs by the quirk engine follows this logic
Eat
Sleep
Die instantly
Repeat
As if the main purpose of the game more of "repeat" than the actual gameplay experience , any noob in this game will tell you his mind stucked in repeating the sequence number of deaths than the gameplay itself , what a complete pile of #.
It's why I don't play cod anymore, my 45yr old hands can't compete with these kids 😂 🤣
1 kill to every 10 deaths is not fun
Don't let that stop you if you enjoy the game, it's actually pretty good for hand/eye coordination.
Try Escape from Tarkov. It forces you to slow down and think. I’m not a fan of the ADD speed of CoD
All the back compat titles are cheap listing when you scroll through them u till you come to black ops it's a complete rip off
Well... Don't buy it..... Is it really that hard to comprehend?
Everything else you choose to purchase with your hard earned cash , so should games be held to the same reasoning....
Just don't give em the cash....
Entitlement that's bizarre, from the publisher and from the consumer.... Thats pretty fkd up if you think about it...
Bananas now cost $30 a pound. There's no good reason for it, but if you want bananas, there you go.
You don't have to buy them.
It's about their constant greed when handling the franchise. Nobody has to buy anything, but when a company doesn't follow corporate norms when selling their product; overpricing their old wares just because they can, the consumer is allowed to call that out.
Consumer can call them out, but I think they are going about it the wrong way.
The reason they get away with everything they do is simply because they can. They can charge $20 for a skin pack because people will gladly buy it. There is plenty of competition for FPS games, it's not like it's a niche market.
I know it's easier to blame and demand better from Activision than people that keep buying these overpriced items. If they weren't being bought, Activision would lower the price though. People like to pretend to take the high road but wouldn't you rather sell the banana for $30 than $3 if people are willing to buy it?
@therealtedcruz
I think there’s a virus destroying the banana and may even go extinct. So maybe that’s why.
I think it’s happen before too.
A small subset buys those skins and whatnot. Most players don't. The "whale" mindset is pretty accurate across the board, where there's a small handful who buy a lot, and most who don't buy any. Either way, that means they're imposed on the majority either way.
That's different from overpricing your game though. Activision easily makes their money off every release, then milks it until the next release, then throws it away. They never put significant sales on even a release from several cycles ago. Whether it sells or not.
And I mean, yeah; if I were a business, I'd probably want to make as much money as possible.
But I'm not a business; I'm a consumer, thus I find many businesses to be complete assholes.
And people are still blaming the high prices but suggest they're still wiling to buy it... Not too smart are you peoples....
Its a non regulated pricing structure, sure , many play by the status-quo , but to actually complain by complaining, instead of standing your ground and not buying it, by buying it , you are the reason its happening....
Idiots, Idiots everywhere.... What? So those that are complaining don't want to pay the money, but cant do without it?
FFS. Entitlement level 5000...
Drink some cement and harden the Fk up!
The article and title isn't saying that people are buying it, its simply saying that they are calling them out for greed. I guess you had a problem with people calling out Microsoft for trying to increase the price of Live, and don't understand how voicing concern led to them backing away from the decision.
People need to put that energy into Nintendo's Pricing over Activisions tbh. They're focused on the wrong things
Greed? Ok... Dont buy it and prove that by being greedy , they got it wrong... Not that hard to understand is it?
To Add... I haven't bought Cod since MW2.... Because of these exact practices.... Fact.
Xbox Series X's FPS Boost is game-changing when it works and disappointing when it doesn't. While frame rates are often consistent, many titles make concerning sacrifices. This lost compiles 20 FPS Boost games that make major sacrifices, detailing their drawbacks.
As someone with the Series S, it makes more of an impact there than on the X. From what i have seen, if the game already supported One X enhancements, then its best to just let it be on the Series X.
But there’s also 13 games that get FPS Boost on Series X that don’t get it on Series S and another number of game that have higher framerate targets with FPS Boost on Series X than Series S so it’s actually not that cut and dry. It’s pretty disappointing on both ends. The cases where it works as intended or as people may have initially thought it would turn out are too few.
If you have Series S and you use backwards compatibility... it is not comparable to Series X. Series S runs vanilla Xbox One versions because of the lack of RAM to emulate Xbox One X ones, for example. Series X is far greater improvement on BC.
Replies(3)Great to have options I’ve gone back to playing dragon age inquisition and it runs superbly. Good article though detailing differences.
Wow, these downplaying articles are rife this week in the lead up to E3.
Funny how it is only this week these articles are surfacing, even though we knew about Series X not running upgrades from Xbox One X BC games months ago. As per article :-
"If a game doesn't run at a stable performance level, the Microsoft backwards-compatibility team can't adjust game settings or resolution to best reach the target frame rate."
Well yeah, you can not change some other developers game code, only they can enhance their own game via next-gen patches.
There is even one now on how Gamepass for PC is "broken".
Wonder what we will see next? We have had Xbox not making any money on any console ever, gamepass for PC is broken, FPS boost has lackluster upgrades, xbox division is being ran in the red at a consistent loss, gamepass has never been profitable, all in the lead up to Xbox and Bethesda's E3 showing.
Funny times, roll on E3 for me, can't wait.
The issue with games not running One X enhancements as not as simple as you state as again, the first 2 batches had games that worked with One X enhancements. Prey, UFC 4, and Skyrim ran with Xbox One X enhancements. Then in the final batch, we got Shadow of the Tomb Raider. The issue is the inconsistency.
Microsoft taking the “exploit” away that used to exist for still running with One X code in Fallout 4. That workaround got removed which is disappointing.
“We’ve known for months”
Before the last batch of 74 games, we only had 2-3 games that lost the enhancements? So it’s actually only been ONE month that we’ve seen how much of a dramatic cut many games have had to make.
Regardless, this article exists to compile each title’s rendering set-up with and without FPS Boost. I don’t get why people are always so personally insulted when something isn’t praised to high heavens. I LOVED replaying Prey with FPS Boost because I got the best of both worlds. Also loved replaying Shadow of The Tomb Raider. Any of the games on this list however?? Not so impressive.
"So it’s actually only been ONE month"
https://www.ign.com/article...
Since before launch - September 2020
https://twistedvoxel.com/fp...
March 2021
So yeah, it has been known for months, 3 to be precise
All in all, the title description of "lackluster upgrades" is just the series console using the Xbox One S version of the game without the One X enhancements, to achieve the FPS boost.
Says it all when the article needs a disclaimer saying they are essentially "making assumptions"
"While this list compiles information as accurately as possible, some assumptions will be made about dynamic resolution. It is assumed that with the sheer horsepower thrown at base Xbox One code, the dynamic resolution scaler will always hit its peak even with the boosted frame rate. If a bullet-point is book-ended by saying DRS can't be discounted, it's because we didn't have enough information to make a safe claim. "
What you’re highlighting are from the first 2 batches, which my comment already addressed. It was a VERY SMALL number of games that needed sacrifices so it was safe to assume they were outliers. Now with 97 games, 20 of them using Xbox One base code(and a large portion also just being games that never got enhanced to begin with so it’s not actually 77 enhanced One X titles that keep them), it’s a much larger issue than the first 2 batches indiciated. It wasn’t until the final batch in late April or early May, that we saw just how limited the feature is and just how limited Microsoft’s lack of user choice in letting us keep the enhancements is.
Also, that first link is irrelevant because that’s about Series S, a whole separate conversation. This article and conversation is about Series X. Also, at least the article is transparent when it is making an assumption rather than many game journalists that simply regurgitate PR speak as fact, spreading misinformation. When those games revert to base Xbox One code, it’s a fact that they’re going to be using the Xbox One resolution range for that title. The assumption is whether it locks to the top-end or if it drops below the max resolution the DRS was set at for base Xbox One. For many games, we have the data to safely say it’s running at the max resolution. For others, we don’t. It’s not like the article is just pulling resolutions out of its ass.
I simply said the following :-
"We knew about Series X not running Xbox One X versions of BC games months ago" - Fact, regardless of how you want to spin it about batches. 20 games (the ones in the list) run the Xbox One code, like you said, but as stated by the teams themselves, this is to enable FPS boost.
It is only an issue, for those that want the FPS boost, along with the One X enhancements, for the majority, they will take the sacrifice of resolution downgrades, to play at a higher framerate, if that is what they want.
Best explained by the article itself :-
"Unfortunately, FPS Boost has hard limits because no game code is being touched. If a game doesn't run at a stable performance level, the Microsoft backwards-compatibility team can't adjust game settings or resolution to best reach the target frame rate."
So what they are essentially saying, is they can not reprogram games they do not own, to enable the resolution to be stable, along with using FPS boost, so they have to use the base code, to enable the doubling of framerate.
If they started delving and dabbling in other games source code, they will have a mightily fine and hefty lawsuit coming there way.
This will only be addressed for the 20 games in question, via a developer patch. Expect these to be fixed in due course as and when.
But to label things as "lackluster upgrades" when there is only 1 upgrade involved FPS boost, is nothing short of fanboyish.
In short :-
All 20 games on the list, are running at Xbox One resolution with FPS boost enabled, instead of the Xbox One X enhanced versions resolution.
This is a known issue, even when running the same games through the BC program.
and the 3 reason not to choosed BF 1
1.EA
2.EA
3.DiCE
-IndianNOOB-
Say no more.
"I have mentioned in the History section above that COD has always added something fun, and by that I meant in terms of gameplay."
This makes your whole argument completely mute. COD has literally been the same thing since COD 4. Same bland story, same broken multiplayer, same children screaming obscenities, same bland gameplay.
I'll take BF1 over CODIW any day simply because they are doing something different then the modern/slightly future warfare. Not to mention BF has had consistently better gameplay over Call of Duty since the beginning.
' Battlefield has never gone futuristic but it has been modern and it seems EA has listened to the fans.'
Battlefield 2142 says hi