An Objective Discussion on the Blackout Pass for Bo4:

Call of Duty Black Ops 4 General Discussion Forum

 

 

So, I have been watching the forums and youtube on this issue for the past couple of weeks. As most of you know BO4 will have a $60 base price and a $40 to $50 season pass depending on whether you go digital or physical. The season pass, as usual, includes the multiplayer and zombies maps. However, this year it's an all or nothing purchase, as they are selling it piecemeal. There has been a lot of backlash as several of the competing games are offering their maps for free not to split their player base. Likewise, Fortnight is a free game while BO4 has the typical Activision price point. Let's take a look.

 

Should BO4 be free?:

 

First of all, Fortnight has one map and one game mode in its free battle royal mode. It's a really big map that is constantly evolving, but it's still just one map. BO4 has a huge battle royal map, 4 zombies maps and the traditional COD multiplayer. As long as multiplayer ships with 12 to 15 maps I don't see a problem with the $60 price point. It's a significantly wider variety of content at a higher cost. Nothing against Fortnight, it's a solid game. But, sometimes you get what you pay for.

 

The Season Pass:

 

The main point of the discussion lies in a lot of the new titles are doing free maps this year and COD is sticking to its old model. Likewise, COD is doing supply drops and a lot of other games are going to direct purchase models. The bottom line is Activision needs to make a profit. I know as a consumer most of you don't care and don't want it to be at your expense. The truth is pretty simple, but the time Infinity Ward launches their game in 2019 Activision will have spent over a billion dollars on BO4. This is split up between server, development, advertising, ongoing content and the tournaments and events. If they don't at least double their money. There won't be a Black Ops 5.

 

If a company is losing money they generally shift how they are operating their business. A lot of other games are changing over to a model to better compete with Fortnight. That being said Activision is sticking with what they know works. They are selling a season pass and supply drops. We have been dealing with them for the last 5 years and they have made Activision a lot of money. So, they are just taking the if it's not broken don't fix it approach. If another company makes a killing, then in a year or two they will probably make the jump. For now, it is what it is.

 

Loot Boxes Vs Direct Purchase:

 

I know there is a big pushback from the community about loot boxes. However, if I have to choose between supply drops and fortnight's model, I would rather have the supply drops honestly. If fortnight, one skin can run $20. For that, I can buy 12 supply drops and potentially get 36 new items for the same price. Granted, some will be duplicates and some of it I don't want. However, having the supply drop system also gives you a steady supply of free drops in the game as long as you are playing 10 to 20 hours a week. The amount of free items you get from a COD game this way is significantly more than what fortnight offers. In fact, there are almost no free items in fortnite to grind for.

 

In Infinite Warfare two years ago, I spent $474 on the game. If we take off the $100 for the game and the season pass. That's $374 on supply drops and misc microtransactions. That comes out to about $32 a month and I have every single thing you can get out of supply drops in Infinite Warfare. So, how many items can you buy in Fortnight for $32 a month? I get that some players prefer direct purchase over loot boxes. But, at the end of the day supply drops still seem to be the better value for the money in my book at least. Likewise, as long as they follow a model similar to COD WW2 with the armory credits it's not really anti-consumer. If they cut and paste BO3's supply drop mode. I'll personally drive the bus with the lynch mob down to Activision.

 

In Conclusion:

 

Overall, I don't really see a problem with the season pass or the supply drops being part of BO4. I agree with the rest of the community that ideally the multiplayer maps should be independent of the season pass. It would not fragment the player base and make the game have a longer lifespan. That being said, it is what it is. Personally, I think there are going to be a lot more important issues with BO4 than the season pass and supply drops. If you don't like the route their going, my best advice would be to not preorder the game before October 11. That would send the strongest message.

 

 

 

 

 

darkrangeresp1
Likes: 761
Posts: 1457
Registered: ‎06-11-2013
13 REPLIES 13

@darkrangeresp1 wrote: 

Should BO4 be free?:


Where anywhere did anyone ever say BO4 should be free? Your trying compare a game everyone fully expected to pay same price as usual, albeit with less content than ever, to a single game mode that was Free from day one. I don't get this comparison or how it is relavant. Now if there was  callout for Blackout to be Free and separate, I can get the comparison but this doesnt' make sense on why it would even be part of the discussion in regards to a full price whole game vs a partial game.


@darkrangeresp1 wrote:

  

The Season Pass:

 

The main point of the discussion lies in a lot of the new titles are doing free maps this year and COD is sticking to its old model. Likewise, COD is doing supply drops and a lot of other games are going to direct purchase models. The bottom line is Activision needs to make a profit. I know as a consumer most of you don't care and don't want it to be at your expense. The truth is pretty simple, but the time Infinity Ward launches their game in 2019 Activision will have spent over a billion dollars on BO4. This is split up between server, development, advertising, ongoing content and the tournaments and events. If they don't at least double their money. There won't be a Black Ops 5.

 

If a company is losing money they generally shift how they are operating their business. A lot of other games are changing over to a model to better compete with Fortnight. That being said Activision is sticking with what they know works. They are selling a season pass and supply drops. We have been dealing with them for the last 5 years and they have made Activision a lot of money. So, they are just taking the if it's not broken don't fix it approach. If another company makes a killing, then in a year or two they will probably make the jump. For now, it is what it is. 

  


Personally could care less about this except for every single year after the DLC drops performance goes to complete trash which is why I stopped buying DLC all together and that won' change with this title if I ever do buy the game which it is highly likely I never will. It is worth mentioning there are less maps in the DLC so while they maybe taking the same approach, they are being very cheap about it this year, at least from the MP side fo things.


@darkrangeresp1 wrote: 

Loot Boxes Vs Direct Purchase:

 

I know there is a big pushback from the community about loot boxes. However, if I have to choose between supply drops and fortnight's model, I would rather have the supply drops honestly. If fortnight, one skin can run $20. For that, I can buy 12 supply drops and potentially get 36 new items for the same price. Granted, some will be duplicates and some of it I don't want. However, having the supply drop system also gives you a steady supply of free drops in the game as long as you are playing 10 to 20 hours a week. The amount of free items you get from a COD game this way is significantly more than what fortnight offers. In fact, there are almost no free items in fortnite to grind for.

 

In Infinite Warfare two years ago, I spent $474 on the game. If we take off the $100 for the game and the season pass. That's $374 on supply drops and misc microtransactions. That comes out to about $32 a month and I have every single thing you can get out of supply drops in Infinite Warfare. So, how many items can you buy in Fortnight for $32 a month? I get that some players prefer direct purchase over loot boxes. But, at the end of the day supply drops still seem to be the better value for the money in my book at least. Likewise, as long as they follow a model similar to COD WW2 with the armory credits it's not really anti-consumer. If they cut and paste BO3's supply drop mode. I'll personally drive the bus with the lynch mob down to Activision.

 


It is a bit shocking to me that you managed to put out 2 paragraphs on the subject and failed to mention the BIGGEST aspect of why people hate COD's versions of loot boxes. It's cause stat changing weapons are locked behind a lottery system, paywall or timed event (BO3 Treyarch version being the worst of all of them). I don't think supply drops with COD would be such an issue if they kept it as cosmetic like Fortnite, Overwatch and many others but they don't cause they are greedy little *****'s feeding of dumb asses that pay for thist stuff, ahem.. .not going to mention any names. The reason Fortnites model is more costly is cause it is for people that want them vs this shady way COD does it by pushing players into buying them off this illusion that they are going to get a weapon that will change how they play the game, that is what makes COD greedy little turds, not the rest off the stuff. 

Congrats on the $374 you spent. It's people like you that empower them to do the crap they do. Spend your money the way you want but it's going to piss off other players to no end when they find out people like you do this crap when they are tryign to figure out why COD basically creates a mixed version fo a P2W and Lottery pay wall system. Thanks for contributing to cance that is COD supply drops. 


MurkBeserk Level 75
Likes: 1672
Posts: 3991
Registered: ‎12-10-2016

Activision makes profit on the base game and special editions.

They could handle free dlcs and supply drops for money. 

As long in the drops the guns aren't stay changing or by far better than normal guns.

 

Roll the dice. Life is a gamble
GRaS is OP. Green Stars are OP
SaND get's everywhere
dtuchpunk Level 75
Likes: 4334
Posts: 14881
Registered: ‎09-06-2011

My own personal thoughts:

 

I can totally understand gamers being miffed that a "Pass" for map DLC exists, given other franchises/games have gone down another path.   

In the end, every game/studio/publisher will tend towards the best economic model for their own production.   It is easy to say " we want this for free" what's more difficult is to say " what's fair?"

 

My take on the Black Ops Pass:   

It is of no less value than previous Season Passes which have been a staple for COD.  Granted, it seems more content for zombies, and 4 fewer MP maps.... as described.   I have no idea what the furture holds for the Black Ops Pass regards Blackout, and perhaps what value is given after the 1 year cycle.

IF the future DLC maps/content was given for free ( not a 50$ pass --> whelp, there's an income stream vanished).   To make this up, Activision would need to gain an ADDITIONAL 50$ in microDLC sales for every Season Pass not sold..... I would think that's highlty optimistic.  (I could be wrong)

 

My individual viewpoint as a gamer:   

The ALL IN Pass looks great for me.  In short, once map DLC is dropped, there will only be 2 groups of players (Those without Pass / those with Pass).  As an Aussie, player fragmentation is key. I have found over the past few years that once we enter the 3rd and 4th Map DLC drops, finding a lobby becomes much harder.    There are gamers, for example, who buy the 1st/2nd map packs.... and then do not buy the 3rd/4th.  Moreover, I can say I have helped gamers who state "I just brought the 3rd DLC Map Pack becuase I liked the look of those maps, why can't I find a lobby?" Answer, because you do not have the first 2, and very seldom do gamers go down this path, sorry mate.                     Point being, having only 2 player groups is better than 3,4,5,6,7 Smiley Happy

 

From my memory bank.  In the past couple of years I have seen threads regarding Map DLC, and what system to use.  Iv'e seen a few folks actually suggest an ALL IN pass.  Thus, it's a concept that has had some community input.

 

Added bonus in the Black Ops Pass:  This year it has been stated that content will drop more regularly, rather than having to wait 3 months for a designated "DLC" 1, etc.  My thought/hope is that this brings the community improved excitement, rather than waiting.

 

May I say, the above are my postive thoughts reagrds the Black Ops Pass this year.  I see a lot of discontent regarding this years direction.     As a gamer, I think its important to discuss issues.  Keep it coming.

________
FalconR6 | Community Forum Moderator


Moderator Moderator
Likes: 2982
Posts: 5834
Registered: ‎30-11-2012

@FalconR6 wrote:

My individual viewpoint as a gamer:   

The ALL IN Pass looks great for me.  In short, once map DLC is dropped, there will only be 2 groups of players (Those without Pass / those with Pass).  As an Aussie, player fragmentation is key. I have found over the past few years that once we enter the 3rd and 4th Map DLC drops, finding a lobby becomes much harder.    There are gamers, for example, who buy the 1st/2nd map packs.... and then do not buy the 3rd/4th.  Moreover, I can say I have helped gamers who state "I just brought the 3rd DLC Map Pack becuase I liked the look of those maps, why can't I find a lobby?" Answer, because you do not have the first 2, and very seldom do gamers go down this path, sorry mate.                     Point being, having only 2 player groups is better than 3,4,5,6,7 Smiley Happy


Is there actual data proving it is broken down like this or is just to try and sell the DLC and good thing. So if there is just a marginal group of players in the past that only bought 1 & 2 and not 3 & 4 and they are the only ones affected than who cares. I am willing to bet there has always been a majority that either buys game and no DLC maps ever and those that buy DLC as a package. WW2 was first year I didn't buy DLC package mostly cause the game looked like it was going to suck and it did. The other reason is I had issues over previous titles with matchmaking performance and in IW ending up having to remove the maps in order to get semi decent results. Because of this I will never buy DLC from a COD game ever if there is any possibility of fragmentation.

Personally, I think this is just BS and spin they put on this to try and make it seem like they are doing something positive. The COD franchise does not put fans before profit on anything really. If they actually cared about fragmentation, they would not split the players between maps to begin with. The BS that is... "Oh look, now only two groups are fragmented, Treyarch is so Awesome" <-- sarcasm for those that are clueless. 

Show me the data that shows the player population that only buys 1 & 2 map packs vs all or nothing and we can talk. Until than it is all hype and BS to try to sell to the naive and stuipid the idea that Treyarch or Activision gives an "F" about your in game experience.


@FalconR6 wrote: 

Added bonus in the Black Ops Pass:  This year it has been stated that content will drop more regularly, rather than having to wait 3 months for a designated "DLC" 1, etc.  My thought/hope is that this brings the community improved excitement, rather than waiting.


Added Bonus... LOL!

This just means fragmentation starts on day one instead of having some decent time in the game without fragmentation. Fragmentation and online experience with performance is why I stopped playing IW and in WW2, the game sucked so bad never made it to the first DLC drop. Oh and what content by they way besides the 12 maps (less than we have receivedi n other DLC's)?!? Stat changing weapons behind suppy drops, yes, can't wait for that awesome content cause they care so much about their fans.

MurkBeserk Level 75
Likes: 1672
Posts: 3991
Registered: ‎12-10-2016

@MurkBeserk wrote:

@FalconR6 wrote:

My individual viewpoint as a gamer:   

The ALL IN Pass looks great for me.  In short, once map DLC is dropped, there will only be 2 groups of players (Those without Pass / those with Pass).  As an Aussie, player fragmentation is key. I have found over the past few years that once we enter the 3rd and 4th Map DLC drops, finding a lobby becomes much harder.    There are gamers, for example, who buy the 1st/2nd map packs.... and then do not buy the 3rd/4th.  Moreover, I can say I have helped gamers who state "I just brought the 3rd DLC Map Pack becuase I liked the look of those maps, why can't I find a lobby?" Answer, because you do not have the first 2, and very seldom do gamers go down this path, sorry mate.                     Point being, having only 2 player groups is better than 3,4,5,6,7 Smiley Happy


Is there actual data proving it is broken down like this or is just to try and sell the DLC and good thing. So if there is just a marginal group of players in the past that only bought 1 & 2 and not 3 & 4 and they are the only ones affected than who cares. I am willing to bet there has always been a majority that either buys game and no DLC maps ever and those that buy DLC as a package. WW2 was first year I didn't buy DLC package mostly cause the game looked like it was going to suck and it did. The other reason is I had issues over previous titles with matchmaking performance and in IW ending up having to remove the maps in order to get semi decent results. Because of this I will never buy DLC from a COD game ever if there is any possibility of fragmentation.

Personally, I think this is just BS and spin they put on this to try and make it seem like they are doing something positive. The COD franchise does not put fans before profit on anything really. If they actually cared about fragmentation, they would not split the players between maps to begin with. The BS that is... "Oh look, now only two groups are fragmented, Treyarch is so Awesome" <-- sarcasm for those that are clueless. 

Show me the data that shows the player population that only buys 1 & 2 map packs vs all or nothing and we can talk. Until than it is all hype and BS to try to sell to the naive and stuipid the idea that Treyarch or Activision gives an "F" about your in game experience.


@FalconR6 wrote: 

Added bonus in the Black Ops Pass:  This year it has been stated that content will drop more regularly, rather than having to wait 3 months for a designated "DLC" 1, etc.  My thought/hope is that this brings the community improved excitement, rather than waiting.


Added Bonus... LOL!

This just means fragmentation starts on day one instead of having some decent time in the game without fragmentation. Fragmentation and online experience with performance is why I stopped playing IW and in WW2, the game sucked so bad never made it to the first DLC drop. Oh and what content by they way besides the 12 maps (less than we have receivedi n other DLC's)?!? Stat changing weapons behind suppy drops, yes, can't wait for that awesome content cause they care so much about their fans.

 

Would you name one of the "stat changing weapons", and what about the weapon makes it appear to be a game changer?

 

BO3 specific please. 


 

Goingdeep747
Likes: 788
Posts: 1377
Registered: ‎06-11-2015

@Goingdeep747 wrote:

Would you name one of the "stat changing weapons", and what about the weapon makes it appear to be a game changer?

 

BO3 specific please. 


  

https://www.reddit.com/r/blackops3/comments/63vnrd/is_there_a_list_of_all_supply_drop_weapons/

Here is a link showing 19 from a year ago, simple google search, there are probably a bunch more. I think of these I may have gotten 4 if that, and not sure how many there were at the time. I haven't palyed BO3 since IW was launched mainly cause of the way they handled supply drops, I was just sick of it. I do remember getting the Banshii probably like 20 plus times and the snipers a lot as well but barely had any of ther others and I am not including how many melee's they spammed in the loot boxes, that's a subject for another topic. 

As far as what makes them game changing, the fact I can not equip them and measure how good or bad they are or counter another player using the same load out, while other players can is what makes them game changing. I remember picking up FFAR multiple times and just wrecking players with that thing. Anyone can come along and say that a specfiic weapon is weak and claim it doesn't effect the outcome of the game but it is dependent on the player since certian players might find a weaopn to fit their playstyle over another and in my case I did really well with high recoil / high fire rate weapons even from ridiculous distances . You can analyze weapons all you want but until a player equips it, learns its recoil patterns, ammo management etc and sometimes just the feel of the weapon is enough, your analzing them means nothing except for your own personal use.

Say what you want but if you want balanced play, every player has to have acces to the same weapons, attachments, perks or any stat changing factor that might exist in the game including specialists. Even if you were able to make the argument that none of the existing supply drop weapons offered any advantage, it is just your opinion, one which can not be confirmed by myself or others since I we will never be able to measure weapon vs weapon unless I have access to them.

And once again, the idea that Activision went to the trouble of filing a legal document / patent that would allow them to manipulate matchmaking based on stat changing weapons that are locked behind a pay wall or lottery system for the purpose of enticing players into spending more money on the micro-transactions, because of that act alone, I will never trust them or this game to be honest and to deliver truly balanced supply drop weapons. The only way I could accept they are not doing this is if all the weapons are available to everyone at some point that doesn't require COD points or luck of the draw. Progression or challenge systems are fine with me but no stat changing items behind a paywall / lottery systerm. 

MurkBeserk Level 75
Likes: 1672
Posts: 3991
Registered: ‎12-10-2016

@MurkBeserk wrote:

@Goingdeep747 wrote:

Would you name one of the "stat changing weapons", and what about the weapon makes it appear to be a game changer?

 

BO3 specific please. 


  

https://www.reddit.com/r/blackops3/comments/63vnrd/is_there_a_list_of_all_supply_drop_weapons/

Here is a link showing 19 from a year ago, simple google search, there are probably a bunch more. I think of these I may have gotten 4 if that, and not sure how many there were at the time. I haven't palyed BO3 since IW was launched mainly cause of the way they handled supply drops, I was just sick of it. I do remember getting the Banshii probably like 20 plus times and the snipers a lot as well but barely had any of ther others and I am not including how many melee's they spammed in the loot boxes, that's a subject for another topic. 

 

Well you kinda made my point from another thread. You quit playing the game in its "yearly cycle" and felt you should have had the same access as those who have grinded it out for years after that. The whole point of the SD's is to entice people to play more, to "offer" them content that was not given to masses for free.............no matter how little they played the game. 

 

As far as what makes them game changing, the fact I can not equip them and measure how good or bad they are or counter another player using the same load out, while other players can is what makes them game changing. I remember picking up FFAR multiple times and just wrecking players with that thing. Anyone can come along and say that a specfiic weapon is weak and claim it doesn't effect the outcome of the game but it is dependent on the player since certian players might find a weaopn to fit their playstyle over another and in my case I did really well with high recoil / high fire rate weapons even from ridiculous distances . You can analyze weapons all you want but until a player equips it, learns its recoil patterns, ammo management etc and sometimes just the feel of the weapon is enough, your analzing them means nothing except for your own personal use.

 

I believe you like the term "stat changing". And again that's not true. There is no SD gun that will make a 20 kill per game player into a 40 kill per game player or a 200 SPM player into a 400 SPM player. They might get lucky a game or two, depending on the skills ( or lack of ) of the enemy team, but over the duration of say 10,000 kills, their stats will not increase measurably with ANY of the guns out of the SD's. 



Say what you want but if you want balanced play, every player has to have acces to the same weapons, attachments, perks or any stat changing factor that might exist in the game including specialists. Even if you were able to make the argument that none of the existing supply drop weapons offered any advantage, it is just your opinion, one which can not be confirmed by myself or others since I we will never be able to measure weapon vs weapon unless I have access to them.

And once again, the idea that Activision went to the trouble of filing a legal document / patent that would allow them to manipulate matchmaking based on stat changing weapons that are locked behind a pay wall or lottery system for the purpose of enticing players into spending more money on the micro-transactions, because of that act alone, I will never trust them or this game to be honest and to deliver truly balanced supply drop weapons. The only way I could accept they are not doing this is if all the weapons are available to everyone at some point that doesn't require COD points or luck of the draw. Progression or challenge systems are fine with me but no stat changing items behind a paywall / lottery systerm. 


I don't know about Fortnite ( too much of a kid's game by its cartoonish graphics for me ), but there are SD's in PUBG that do have game/stat changing guns. They are not available to everyone, only if the drop is near you and you can grab the gun before someone smokes ya. So there is an element of randomness and lottery in their system too. You could argue they "earned" the gun, but location to the SD is a huge advantage under the PUBG design. 

 

 

Goingdeep747
Likes: 788
Posts: 1377
Registered: ‎06-11-2015

@Goingdeep747 wrote:

Well you kinda made my point from another thread. You quit playing the game in its "yearly cycle" and felt you should have had the same access as those who have grinded it out for years after that. The whole point of the SD's is to entice people to play more, to "offer" them content that was not given to masses for free.............no matter how little they played the game. 

 


My issue was with the game and how they handled the supply drops at that time, not after the fact. I never went back to the game so I am not sure what your point is, kind of doesn't make sense. I have never stated I want all 19 of those guns or however many there are now. I do absolutely want and expect to have full access to the same weaopns, perks and attachments for the sole purpose of ensuring the game play is fair across the board and that is the only way for that to actually happen on any existing COD I might be playing. I don't trust DEVS to balance weapons well most of the time and that is fine since if there is an OP weapon I can easily equip it and now it is just about player skill. The only barrer might be progression which is not a big deal since they have tokens to carry certain items over to prestige. If it is a weapon that is locked behind a paywall or lottery system, there is a chance I will never be able to equip it not matter how much I play.

They can entice them with skins and cosmetic items, not stat changing weapons that could potentially have an effect on the game play. The fact that the DEVS have to nerf many of these DLC weapons, you know the weapons most players will never have access to, pretty much poops on the idea that the stat changing DLC weaposn don't matter in a balanced game. Again, not sure what your point is but the only thing that maybe this proves is those that like the stat changing weapons as a benefit to players that put time in the game or spend a ton of money on drops would lead me to believe they want an advantage in the game supporting the idea that is is a pay to win mantality. Not saying this is you but that is the problem with the system, it potentially gives unfair advantages to some players outside of the design of the game. To me, earning something is earning a kill, earning a SS, earning a win, not getting lucky with a weapon draw so you can have an advantage over other players. 


@Goingdeep747 wrote:

I believe you like the term "stat changing". And again that's not true. There is no SD gun that will make a 20 kill per game player into a 40 kill per game player or a 200 SPM player into a 400 SPM player. They might get lucky a game or two, depending on the skills ( or lack of ) of the enemy team, but over the duration of say 10,000 kills, their stats will not increase measurably with ANY of the guns out of the SD's.  



Are you telling me there are zero stats changed on these weapons, no difference in rate of fire, recoil, center kick, damage output, ads, etc? What would you call this, stat changing seems like the most accurate and honest description I can come up with. It's not about going from 20 to 40 kills although in theory, it could happen if your 1 kill away from a streak that will earn you a streak that will earn you another streak and than you cylce it in that particular game. I use to cycle raps like crazy and if I missed that first kill that got me the first SS than I might not have gotten 2-3 sets of raps. So yes, if a weapon offers you an advantage in one fight in the game where otherwise you might have lost, it will create a very unbalanced game. Maybe it won't make you a consistenly better player but if it creates unbalanced matches or at least the potential for unbalanced matches even once, it needs to go.

And again, if there isn't a potential issue with this, why do DEVS feel the need to nerf the DLC weapons.? If there was no potential imbalance, why not just leave them all alone? Answer... cause it matters and they know it.

And as far as your last statement, if a weapon that only a some players can access can turn the tide of one game, it is imbalanced and should not be part of the game or it is trully a pay to win system, period.



@Goingdeep747 wrote:


I don't know about Fortnite ( too much of a kid's game by its cartoonish graphics for me ), but there are SD's in PUBG that do have game/stat changing guns. They are not available to everyone, only if the drop is near you and you can grab the gun before someone smokes ya. So there is an element of randomness and lottery in their system too. You could argue they "earned" the gun, but location to the SD is a huge advantage under the PUBG design. 


That is the same with Fortnite although I don't play that game anymore and barely ever did (think I played maybe four or five games of Fortnite and never played PUBG). That is a different type of game and part of the design and strategy within the game. Part of the strategy is to loot and find stuff same as loading up on health and armor. It is designed to give the player an advantage if they can locate the items before other players, it's in the game design. However, everyone starts out equal at the beginning of the match vs COD DLC weapons where only those that invest a ton of time and money (still with no guarantee of getting the weapons)  have the opportunity to use certain weapons and if those weapons can not be countered by the same loadout, the balance is offset and the advantage is only available to those with the weapons. 


MurkBeserk Level 75
Likes: 1672
Posts: 3991
Registered: ‎12-10-2016

It's definitely a plus with the player pool be fractured once. the only thing I feel could be better is if the multi maps were free for everyone and then cash in on Blackout and Zombies.

iHattoriHanzo0 Level 75
Likes: 7581
Posts: 7665
Registered: ‎08-10-2013

Studios