It takes 70-90 seconds to launch Modern Warfare 3
That’s it? Launching Warzone takes at least ten times that, between daily 45GB updates, multiple restarts when updating, unskippable intro videos and PS2-era loading times.
Wtf who would play that? I’m not waiting 10 minutes to play a videogame - that’s a 6th of my free time every day.
Not willing to wait 10 minutes to play a game? You Sir, or Madam, have never played modded Rimworld.
Now imagine loading a game, realizing your mods aren’t quite right, and having to exit out and reload.
As to 10 minutes to something like Warzone… no. Just no. An online battle royal type game needs to be fast. It can’t be all laid back and calming like Rimworld, the colony/warcrimes simulator.
wait 10 minutes to play a game
When we were in computer camp in '84 or so, it took 10-minutes to load Dungeons & Dragons off the tape drive to the VIC-20. Had to kick it off before break time, and then we had to fight for a spot to play. Read error? Rewind and start again, now break’s over.
Rotten assed kids, all of ya.
/old_man_rant
I’m not sure about how things are today, as I only played Warzone during the first couple of months of the release… But the main reason the game took a long time to load back then was shader pre-compilation, and honestly, I prefer that over the massive stuttering mess most other games that skipped this step would become.
I feel there’s a good number of people who would just take neither as well though. Yeah, 10m loading is better than intermittent stuttering, but then I better be playing one of the top 10 games of all time if i’m dealing with that.
But they don’t have to compile shaders every time the game is launched. Only when I install a new content or the first time I install the game.
Is this the equivalent of lemmy karmawhoring? I can’t see how this is related to the acquisition.
Is this the equivalent of lemmy karmawhoring?
No, because Lemmy has no karma system.
I can’t see how this is related to the acquisition.
Activision fuckups are Microsoft fuckups now. Microsoft and lots on industry observers claimed that Microsoft taking over Activision would be such as good change. Turns out: It wasn’t, just as the fullscreen CoD ad on Xbox was not a positive change.
I don’t see how a game which was developed pre MS has anything to do with MS fucking up? That’s a soceopathic obsession with hating something, 99.99999% of people won’t think of blaming a company for this.
The acquisition has barely even started. I don’t think Microsoft has a single say in this games development yet.
No problem, just don’t play that crap.
Who’s buying this shit anymore? The last game I got was the original MW2. None of my friends have bought CoD games in ages. Am I just in the wrong friend circles?
Nah fam, you and your friends are just getting old. It’s the kids these days who are suckers for buying cash-cow and money milking games. Because they are kids and don’t give a shit about money with respect to quality.
I think it’s a little about how they don’t know better either, and there’s no better options. You and I remember when multiplayer games used to be great, but if nowadays they’re all shit, what option do they have?
Funny. My worst fear is being stuck in the middle of the ocean with no boats or land in sight. But I’m trying to be more open-minded so I guess I shouldn’t judge.
… but also at the same time my greatest fear about the gaming industry is that all indie games will start having battle passes and subscriptions. But I guess some people who still think the base version of Call of Duty is worth the yearly $70 subscription fee might be deathly afraid of being reminded that MW3 is actually just MW2 with a few new guns.
Battle passes are fine when done right. Deep Rock Galactic, for example, adds all the cosmetics from the pass into the random loot pool after the season ends.
Most battle passes fucking suck though. Like in overwatch where you pay for the privilege of unlocking things through dozens of hours of gameplay.
Ye, ghostship gaming has nailed it. Some items even go into the store and can be bought with earned currency.
The game is so good that I’m serious considering buying some dlc to support them.
I see where you’re coming from, but if the game is designed in a way where it feels like it’s trying to convince me that playing the game for a larger amount of time is worth a reward and not rewarding in its own right then something is definitely off
So you’re against unlocking things through play? Stay away from the rouge-like genre then, you would hate it.
Just about any game that is designed to be played more than once (i.e. not story games like the Witcher) will have some sort of in-game rewards to keep it fresh. Like the Binding of Isaac where you have over a thousand different items to unlock through gameplay. But live service games need a way to keep their game fresh for even longer than most. Themed unlockable cosmetics are a great way to do it. As long as they’re not capitalizing on FOMO, I do not see any problem with it.
You know what’s crazy? The original Modern Warfare 3 from 2009 is still $40 on steam. Black Ops 2 from 2012 is $60.
COD pricing is insane. For comparison the Halo MCC which includes six games, two of which are remastered, is $40.
I think CoD pricing is affected by the fact that usually, it’s mum that’s paying for it
They are smoking unfiltered crack at activision-blizzard. Just don’t play them. Or pirate. Not like they are a very wonderful company to their own employees.
In fact, it’s actually better to pirate them and use Plutonium for Multiplayer. This is due to the fact that many pre-Infinite Warfare Call of Duty titles have unpatched RCE vulnerabilities that Activision never bothered to fix, but have been in Plutonium.
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-20817
https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-2190/Activision.html
