2 CoD 4 maps + 3 new maps headed to MW2

ChaosADPumpkinHead said:
I'm by no means saying that Activision are looking out for their consumer's best interests. They are in it to make money just like every other developer/publisher. If I were in charge of Activision, there are many things I would do differently. What I do find unfair is the way they've been singled out as being the only publisher out there trying to milk their customers. EA have been doing it for years and years now. Just look at the FIFA franchise, how many times did they release the next title with only minor cosmetic changes? The point is, I stopped playing FIFA for good and moved onto a product that I felt was better value. Now it seems that a lot of disgruntled Activision customers are moving over to EA and Bad Company 2 (great news for BF fans as there will be loads more online players) but I just wonder how long it will be before EA does the same thing?
Click to expand...

It was not too long ago that EA was perceived as the big bad wolf of gaming. In recent years they have pulled of some pretty impressive damage control though. A good example is Bad Company 2, which is now available for as little as R308, has dedicated servers, is epic, and incidentally, will be getting a new map pack on the same day as MW2, FOR FREE.

Sticking with the BC2 comparison:

Modern Warfare = R430 + R120 map pack = R550. Still an excellent game, but tarnished (on PC) by the lack of dedicated servers.
Bad Company 2 = R308 + free map pack, excellent game, dedicated servers.

The sad thing, is that Infinity Ward is a great developer, and Modern Warfare 2 is an excellent game. So naturally, gamers are upset that it is being spoiled by things like this.
 
Fair points there Tinman but what people fail to realise is that there is little benefit to BC2's dedicated servers? Can you host a BC2 server? NOPE! You have to be a registered EA GSP in order to host a server. They don't simple give you the server files either, they upload them onto your ftp once you have been accepted. Web Africa is currently jumping through all kinds of hoops for EA and are still waiting for their BC2 servers. Can you LAN BC2? Not that I'm aware of. So the only real difference between Activision and EA is that EA have made "claims" about their product. The lack of dedicated servers in MW2 is really only an issue for competitive players. As a casual MW2 player, IWNET works very well for me, aside from the crappy local internet quality.

I've been on the receiving end of EA's greed for many years now and refuse to buy into this idea that they are somehow the saviours of gaming or that they are doing it for the gamers.
 
Tinman said:
A good example is Bad Company 2, which is now available for as little as R308, has dedicated servers, is epic, and incidentally, will be getting a new map pack on the same day as MW2, FOR FREE.
Click to expand...

Marketing, marketing, marketing. If IW wasn't bringing out a DLC pack, you can bet your arse BC2's wouldn't be free. This has nothing to do with altruistic magnanimity, and everything to do marketing savvy and making themselves look better.
 
Stop moaning, either you pay for it, or you don't. The 360 version was R600+ and to be honest I don't even see that many people playing it like they used to. So no go for me on the map pack. I've not played it MP since early January, why because honestly it was no where near as good as 4 and BFBC1
 
i wasted money on this game, played about an hour of multiplayer and didnt like it much, WAY too noob unfriendly - spawn insta die for an hour with only 1 kill = uninstall .... could have bought another 500Gb hard drive instead...*sigh
 
ChaosADPumpkinHead said:
Why are you special? Why do PC gamers believe that developers own them free stuff? If you don't want to pay for it, then don't. It's called choice!
Click to expand...

I want it and I want it for free :p

I dont mind paying for something if it reasonable price. The price is 1/5 of the game for only 5 maps(2 from Cod 4) which I think is overpriced.

EDIT: What bothers me is the fact that they are ready to release DLC, and not fix current issues with the game. There are quite a few glitches in the game which are not being fixed but they are releasing DLC.

Also, if they do fix these issues in the DLC must I purchase the DLC for issues that should have been fixed prior to release DLC? This will be forcing people to buy DLC for fixes which is their mess up. This should not be the case. (This is my assumption though).
 
Last edited:
Slipperyduck said:
i wasted money on this game, played about an hour of multiplayer and didnt like it much, WAY too noob unfriendly - spawn insta die for an hour with only 1 kill = uninstall .... could have bought another 500Gb hard drive instead...*sigh
Click to expand...

Lee you are a waste... get over it :P

What you think of BC2?
 
Azimuth said:
Marketing, marketing, marketing. If IW wasn't bringing out a DLC pack, you can bet your arse BC2's wouldn't be free. This has nothing to do with altruistic magnanimity, and everything to do marketing savvy and making themselves look better.
Click to expand...

I'd say its called competition. They are capitalizing on an opportunity to better their position with the gamers, first by touting the dedicated servers, now with the free map packs. And its working, BC2 is the better deal at the moment and its a lot more populated than MW2, especially locally.
 
Blackhand, not trying to be an ass or anything but how would you know that BC2 is better populated than MW2? I'm just curious as to your sources for this statement. I tried for a hour last night to play BC2 and couldn't get onto a server, loaded up MW2 and was in a game within 2 minutes.
 
Blackhand said:
I'd say its called competition. They are capitalizing on an opportunity to better their position with the gamers, first by touting the dedicated servers, now with the free map packs.
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of Valve's approach. Rather than putting the choice of pay for content or get left out (due to map packs). They constantly release new content in an attempt to grow the user base (and game) and rake in profits that way. Three new maps and two rehashes are a very bitter pill when I can pick up a good classic game that will give me more entertainment or a DLC for another game (Fallout 3 and Borderlands come to mind) for about the same price or cheaper.

I don't own or play MW2 or BC2 btw so I'm not whining. :p Merely saying that even if I did I wouldn't buy the maps since I think it's a bad deal.
 
Azimuth said:
Marketing, marketing, marketing. If IW wasn't bringing out a DLC pack, you can bet your arse BC2's wouldn't be free. This has nothing to do with altruistic magnanimity, and everything to do marketing savvy and making themselves look better.
Click to expand...

Hmmm I don't know about that. I don't necessarily disagree, I just don't think there is really room for conjecture like that in an argument like this. You could take it a step further, and even suggest that EA held back maps from the final release so that they could release them later for free and look like the heroes.

I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Everytime a developer does something that is fair and benefits gamers, do we look for an ulterior motive?
 
Tinman said:
I would prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Everytime a developer does something that is fair and benefits gamers, do we look for an ulterior motive?
Click to expand...

Look at Bioshock. The multiplayer DLC (not quite a fair term in this case) was included on the retail disc with unlock code that is downloaded when you purchase it. :| Holding back content that is available at release and then offering it as "DLC" later is a bit underhanded. So I wouldn't exclude the possibility of company holding back maps or the like. What I do think is that companies should really strive to gain the admiration of their customers.

A good example is Valve who go out of their way to keep their customers happy e.g. flying the leader of a boycott Left4Dead2 group to their offices to play the beta version of the game and sending him back to talk to the rest of the group. This WORKS. It's much better than the middle finger approach that was giving in regards to Modern Warfare 2. Companies need to understand that gamers may follow them in the short term if they keep ignoring complaints but in the long term customers are going to follow the companies that listen.

I think that companies in general also need to understand that it's cheaper to keep their current customers than generate new ones. A good example is Afrihost and Screamer. Screamer made promises they couldn't keep i.e. a cheap uncapped 384Kb that was so unreliable I ended up buying an Axxess voucher to do my work. Afrihost on the other end worked by selling cap below cost to build up a huge customer base and then leveraging this to buy upstream cap at a price that could sustain their initial client price. The end result is that I will probably never use or recommend screamer ever again and I'm staying with Afrihost even if other ISPs provide a similar price.
 
If we're talking a business approach to this.... here goes:

Frazier also noted that "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has become the third-best-selling game of all-time, now at just under 10 million units life-to-date."
(these figures are for Xbox and PS3 only)


Looking at that figure all the complaints and threatened boycotts didn't really make a huge difference to the sales of MW2, it might even have helped them sell more through all the free publicity they got.

As for simple customer relationship management, mention has been made about customer retention as opposed to customer acquisition. In some cases it will actually be more cost effective to acquire new customers than it will be to service existing customers. Simply having customers does not mean much in business terms. Customers can be categorised into various groups and the two I would like to mention are GOOD and BAD. A good customer is one that makes a profit for the company and obviously a bad customer is one that actually costs the company money. In the case of MW2, I would venture so far as to say that console gamers are Activision's good customers and PC gamers the bad ones. This is mainly due to the fact the the majority of complaints (if not all of them) were from PC gamers.

No matter what emotional issues anyone raises about MW2, the fact are clear in that the game has been hugely successful. As a businessman, if I were given the choice between having a hugely successful product that makes me tons of money or having the admiration of a fairly small group of consumers.... I wouldn't need two seconds to decide which option I'd take.
 
Last edited:
ChaosADPumpkinHead said:
If we're talking a business approach to this.... here goes:

Frazier also noted that "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has become the third-best-selling game of all-time, now at just under 10 million units life-to-date."
(these figures are for Xbox and PS3 only)


Looking at that figure all the complaints and threatened boycotts didn't really make a huge difference to the sales of MW2, it might even have helped them sell more through all the free publicity they got.

As for simple customer relationship management, mention has been made about customer retention as opposed to customer acquisition. In some cases it will actually be more cost effective to acquire new customers than it will be to service existing customers. Simply having customers does not mean much in business terms. Customers can be categorised into various groups and the two I would like to mention are GOOD and BAD. A good customer is one that makes a profit for the company and obviously a bad customer is one that actually costs the company money. In the case of MW2, I would venture so far as to say that console gamers are Activision's good customers and PC gamers the bad ones. This is mainly due to the fact the the majority of complaints (if not all of them) were from PC gamers.

No matter what emotional issues anyone raises about MW2, the fact are clear in that the game has been hugely successful. As a businessman, if I were given the choice between having a hugely successful product that makes me tons of money or having the admiration of a fairly small group of consumers.... I wouldn't need two seconds to decide which option I'd take.
Click to expand...

Very well stated. :) Although I still contend that the long term affects of these actions must not be underestimated. Personally I am sticking with Valve and leaving EA/DICE and Activision/IW as far as FPSs goes. My personal choice.
 
Wolfman, I am in NO way trying to support either EA/DICE or Activision. I'm simply trying to look at it from a business point of view.

I am a PC gamer, I love my PC and even though I have a Xbox I can't even remember the last time I used it. I hate the way developers and publishers rush products onto the shelves before they are ready but these days it seems to be a common trend.

It annoys me but I try look at the big picture... is MW2 a great game? I don't really care! DO I enjoy it? Yes! Is Bad Company 2 a great game? I don't think so but I enjoy playing it. So for me both games represent value if I consider the amount of time and enjoyment I get out of them.

Will an extra $15 help me enjoy MW2 for a few more months? I'll just have to wait and see...
 
ChaosADPumpkinHead said:
How the hell are they doing that? Did anyone force you to buy the game? Did they EVER promise free DLC? I really don't understand this kind of argument. If you're a DSTV subscriber, do you have a hissy fit everytime they increase the subscription fee? It's your choice to use a product or not. Why should gamers receive better treatment than any other consumer group?
Click to expand...
Valuefor money thats all we want....and this isnt it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top