30 Replies Latest reply: Oct 6, 2013 8:41 AM by UndreamtStone RSS

Dear Activision,

superbob

Here is how you can earn me (and tons of other veterans) back as a customer.

 

Lets start with my stance on the series. CoD4 and WaW were great, but since then, it has been on a decline. The trend I have noticed is as the budget for single player has been increasing, the multiplayer has been suffering (A-list Hollywood writers and mo-capping dogs can't be cheap). WaW+CoD4 has quality stories no where near the budget of the latest games and their MP are considered cream of the crop. If you are so intent on released a great single player, the game needs to come out every other year and have Treyarch+IW collaborate on the same project (preferably with Treyarch on SP+Zombies and IW on MP, with assistance of course)

 

Another thing both games have in common is they both had betas (semi-open betas). Inviting a select few YouTubers to test your game isn't enough. Guys like Tmartn are literally the WORST people to give you feedback since they thrive on making videos about exploits/glitches, so they NEED those in the game to support themselves. Also if you didn't allow ANYONE to release info from the event, I doubt they would even show up since they wouldn't be able to make a video titled "OMG COD GHOSTS GAMEPLAY!!!" and make tons of money. You should invite guys like 402Thunder402 who are vocal about problems and want the game to be good so they can enjoy it, and not just use it for income.

A beta could have easily avoided things like one man army danger close noob tubes in MW2, ghost/second chance in Black Ops 2, deathstreaks in MW3, and shotguns/snipers being practically interchangeable (and lag/basic gun/perk/killstreaks in all of them). This community will exploit everything and anything, betas are needed.

 

Activision I know you are putting up top tier sales but the increase per year is slowing down (and I heard BO2 has even fell behind MW3) but it won't last for long. Eventually CoD will crash with all the competition coming out (GTA V wiped the floor with CoD when it comes to sales). I know you hear complaints everyday but it is for good reason, there is problems you aren't addressing because sales are still profitable. I hope you listen to CoD veterans and stop catering to getting first time players because if you made a game that pleased veterans, I'm sure new players would buy it too.

 

Sorry for wall of text, but I felt this is needed.

  • Re: Dear Activision,
    UndreamtStone

    I see as usual you have gotten no response....this it seems is the most common problem with the developers and the moderators....it is really sad....I guess the forums is  mostly just a vent session for all us players...wish there was someone that was actually paying attention besides us

  • Re: Dear Activision,
    EmiliozGunz

    Hello Suberbob,

     

    No apology needed! All feedback positive and negative are always welcome. I do thank you very much for your well thought out post!

     

    I myself have no information on who gets invited to participate in game play, but can do what I can to let the proper parties know of your request. I also know that a lot of feedback is also taken from these MP Events that are currently taking place as well as any other gaming events where you can play the game, so rest assured its not just a small group of individuals who are supplying feedback about the game.

     

    ^JG

    ATVI Support

  • Re: Dear Activision,
    maccabi

    superbob wrote:

    You should invite guys like 402Thunder402 who are vocal about problems and want the game to be good so they can enjoy it, and not just use it for income.

     

     

     

    Sorry that made me laugh thunder has made a career out of slating call of duty games , he doesn't highlight problems hes vocal about stuff he doesn't understand and causes massive confusion in the wider community as a result he's also exceptionally rude.

  • Re: Dear Activision,
    Fruity_Pops

    i agree on the point that call of duty needs a break to come back stronger, 2 years is not a long time in the development world these days, hence the same old same old style of games from both developers. i would love to see both devs team up and have a break for maybe 2 years, putting 4 years of effort into one really great game, its what cod vets and loyal customers deserve. instead of the regurgitated bollocks that we get year in year out . 

  • Re: Dear Activision,
    starbuckfrack

    Betas only help to work out the server issues and that is all. The Beta for the BF4 game was at LEAST 6 months old game code. Tons of recoding has already been made to the present "live" version.

     

     

    And when they make the COD games they take TWO years to make each game already.

     

    Betas for the game have been suggested for years and guess what. They still dont have them.

     

     

    And you cant compare GTA to COD because it is two totally different games.

    • Re: Dear Activision,
      superbob

      1) Betas also help find trends in player behavior. If they have a beta and 97% of people used the same thing all the time and had a high success rate, it would warrant a nerf/retuning. Sure there would be glitches that would have been fixed already, but there will also be new things that occur.

       

      2) Yes each game is 2 years, but it is 1 studio working on single player, co-op, and multiplayer for only 2 years. It is a lot for a studio to handle and the quality of MP is clearly suffering for the quality of single player and co-op.

  • Re: Dear Activision,
    starbuckfrack

    Regular games would also show a trend in player behavior like they do now, so a beta isnt needed. They get vibes from what people like in tweets and reading the forums.

     

     

    It is your opinion that multiplayer is suffering, doesnt make it true.

     

     

    For example When they have certain killstreaks in the beta they cant be removed because as I said the beta is 6 months old. The newest code for the game will still have the killstreaks.

     

     

    This has been overdiscussed for years. If they dont want a beta then they arent going to get one. No matter how nicely you word a letter it isnt going to change their mind.

    • Re: Dear Activision,
      superbob

      If they use regular games to do balance changes, it is already too late. Look how many issues they still have after what, 20 patches, with 15 of them having balance changes.

       

      And if a killstreak is in the beta, OF COURSE they can get rid of it. Code for the beta being 6 months old won't keep them from preparing an update for the game's launch.

      • Re: Dear Activision,
        starbuckfrack

        Listen one more time.

         

        If the code in the beta is six months old then the code in the PRESENT code is still in there. Thats means if they released a beta like they did with BF4 (one month before release) then it is too late to remove or change the code in the main game.

         

        Even a minor change in the code can destroy gameplay. Imagine what would happen if the removed an entire killstreak.

         

        Say if the beta had commando, well in the present code AND the beta there would still be commando. So how are they going to change out an entire game with commando one month before release ?

         

        It takes at LEAST 5 weeks for them to go thru the procedure of releasing a patch and that is IF Microsoft agrees with it. So how in one month are they going to get feedback, test a change, approve a change, and send the disk out for gold release in one month ?

         

        BF4 was just released as beta. Do you really think that in the beta they are able to make changes to the game that customers want (I am talking major changes) , get approval, make it to press at the distributor in release for 10-29s release? No they cant and no they wont. Anything in the BF4 beta is not going to go with any major changes by release time and never will after release.

         

        When you deal with a major game release you not only have to deal with the coding side of the release but also all the red tape that goes with it. This isnt a 2 dimensional Earthworm Jim we are talking about here.

         

        you notice that they didnt have a beta AGAIN for the game. Because they didnt want one. Period. Time to live in reality, you dont own the game and you dont have a clue to what goes on behind the scenes. You are on the outside looking in. You think you are the first one to come up with reasons that you think might work in having a beta for COD ?

         

        The topic is old and dead.

  • Re: Dear Activision,
    starbuckfrack

    Did you notice that the game you DID compare to COD didnt have a beta ? GTA didnt have a public beta.

     

    Want to know one of the reasons why ? Because they did not want to let the cat out of the bag.

     

    You didnt get a beta and you WONT get a beta.

     

    If you want a beta then wait til the next COD game comes out because you wont get one now.

     

     

    And how are they going to be ready on the day one update ? Mail everyone their copy a day early and FedEx them overnight ?

     

    What you dont seem to understand a BETA is for testing the server output that is all. Not a chance to give you a sneak peek at the game. You want to get into the next private beta, then start kissing the bums of some people that can get you in. Not crying because you didnt get one this time around either.

    • Re: Dear Activision,
      superbob

      I did not ONCE compare CoD to GTA. The only time GTA was mentioned was saying that it is creaming CoD in sales.

       

      Also I wonder how they'll have a day one update for everyone without shipping games early, oh wait, this invention called title updates. If you think betas are used for only server testing you are dumb. Dice has a test server on the beta where they test for bugs and get people to help them.

      • Re: Dear Activision,
        starbuckfrack

        superbob wrote:

         

        I did not ONCE compare CoD to GTA. The only time GTA was mentioned was saying that it is creaming CoD in sales.

         

        Also I wonder how they'll have a day one update for everyone without shipping games early, oh wait, this invention called title updates. If you think betas are used for only server testing you are dumb. Dice has a test server on the beta where they test for bugs and get people to help them.

        Title updates are not major changes to a game. A title update for example will not remove a killstreak, just tweak it.

         

        when you used GTA as an example you COMPARED the sales in that game COMPARED to the sales in this game.

         

         

        Your comparison showed nothing. GTA still didnt have a beta regardless if you feel it was a comparison or not.

         

        COD games for the past few years sold MORE than any of the other years before it and they didnt have a beta. If having a beta were to affect sales and make them MORE money in sales than going thru all the red tape and money of running a beta they would have done it. But it DIDNT make them come out ahead, hence they ended it.

         

        You know how much just running a beta on Xbox Live costs ? Are you willing to fork out the money for it ?

        • Re: Dear Activision,
          superbob

          Title updates are MAJOR updates. Minor updates are done through hotfixing.

           

          And do you know how much money Activision makes, I think they can afford to pay for a beta, which in turn will help their game sell more because it won't suck.

          • Re: Dear Activision,
            starbuckfrack

            Title update are MINOR fixes. Look at the last patch that they released for Black Ops, do you see anything in there more than tweaks or bug fixes ? No.

             

            Did you see at any point in the game when they removed a killstreak ? No.

             

            Xbox Community Update (2/26/14) Tell me, where in the history of Black Ops did they make a patch after the release of the game where they made a major change in the game. They cant because the game is already coded in.

             

            You may not realize this but the amount a game makes is not all pure profit. They have bills to pay, salaries, banks to pay off, investors to pay, etc.

             

            Even IF the very slim chance it was pure profit why would they want to spend money on a beta when they game already is one of the top sellers in the world.

             

            You remember when thay said "screw last stand " and basically still left it in the game. Why was it that they couldnt just remove it with a patch ? Because regardless of what customers think they left the game the way THEY wanted to.

             

            As to catering to first time players, a companies goal is to expand their customer database as far as it can. And if it means catering to noobs and 13 years olds so be it. They owe nothing to us COD veterans. Times always change and the veterans get pushed out to make way for the young . Happens in every job in history, some little upstart that knows nothing takes over the job you were meant to have. You either go with the flow or get out of the way.

            • Re: Dear Activision,
              superbob

              1) You keep using "Removing killstreaks" as an example as to why beta works, but I not once used removing killstreaks as something they would do.

              2) They could remove killstreaks with a title update, just like how they added the peacekeeper.

              3) The point I was trying to make was say One man army noob tubes in MW2. With a beta, they could have made it so you can switch to the same class or another class with noob tubes before the game released and practically saved that game from being a retarded clusterfuck.

              • Re: Dear Activision,
                starbuckfrack

                Removing killstreaks was an EXAMPLE of major game changes which they cannot do.

                Again you claim you never said anything when you can easily tell you did ...

                "A beta could have easily avoided things like one man army danger close noob tubes in MW2, ghost/second chance in Black Ops 2, deathstreaks in MW3" As well as when you said it again in reference number 2.

                 

                If they had second chance in the beta and people wanted it removed, according to your theory they could have easily removed it in a day one patch. In the VERY slim chance that they could remove it they first would have to fill it with something else, then get approval from Microsoft. After they paid 40 grand for Microsoft to either approve or disapprove the patch, if Microsoft did NOT approve it they would then have to take at least 5 weeks to get something else in there IF the public would even approve the killstreak. Hell the "new killstreak" could suck according to the public and be even worse than second chance. This second attempt to patch it would cost them another 40 thousand to get Microsoft to even look at it.

                 

                As a corporation are you really going to spend 40 grand or more PLUS the money to pay all those programmers to patch and all that red tape to get it done AFTER the games release it just because some people that bought the game cried over it ? Are you going to spend 40 K on a patch months before the games release to patch and more money to release another beta ? Dont think so. You would be one of the top game companies in the world if you did.

                 

                The reason they were able to add the peacekeeper was because they had a memory slot already saved for it. Hence the reason they could not add anymore guns.

                 

                Did you ever buy some little thing on the Xbox that was only 108 Kb when downloaded ? That is how it works. something was stored in the game for future use. you unlocked it when you bought it.

                • Re: Dear Activision,
                  starbuckfrack

                  Simple solution for a corporation. Hype the game up and sell it.

                   

                  Simple solution as a gamer. Hold the money in your pocket when the game comes out and make sure you dont pre-order it. Read the forums and the internet and get some REAL opinions on the game.

                   

                  Then make YOUR decision to but it. If you make the decision to buy it, then it is YOUR decision to buy it and no one elses. If they didnt release a beta, then dont buy it until you at LEAST rent it first.

                   

                  Its no ones fault but your own that you bought a betaless game and you thought it sucked. If you dont like the fact that it didnt have a beta then you should walk away now.

                   

                  AS of right now and I am sure until release, Ghosts does not have a beta, so what decision are you going to make ? Its your choice.

  • Re: Dear Activision,
    trialstardragon

    You know the main reason they don't do beta? Because of all the complaints they would get about how one perk or weapon or attachment or kill streak was OP and needed to be nerfed or the player would not be buying the final release. The threats and demands and commands that the community thinks the devs MUST obey because the players HAVE spoken.

    • Re: Dear Activision,
      superbob

      For every player turned away, another will be swayed towards the game. If they released a good beta that showed me promise, I would definitely buy the game. And after the problems players turned away for are fixed, they will return.

      • Re: Dear Activision,
        trialstardragon

        Possible but not always true. Plus then there is the crowd that just plays beta's and never gets the game since they already played it dont feel the need to play more. Plus not all the problems will be fixed so those that left may not return. Plus you would have the crowd that tried to demand the game be tailored to only how they want. Halo Reach had that problem.

         

        Smarter to just hype the game up and then force players to buy it to try it out. Keep it out of rental stores for the first few months. So everyone that has friends that play it would have to buy it too.