Call of Duty: Elite announced, a monthly subscription for bonus content. - Polidicks

I am just watching the video now, about 3 mins in and wow I thought this was a joke.

[QUOTE=Hazrd24;30150126]Beat that dead horse until it's fully decomposed[/QUOTE] Beat that dead horse until it's petroleum. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;30156647]He uses his Staff of Zion to transform it into "Jew Gold", as the layman term goes, which he then hangs in little bags around his neck. The remaining pieces he sews into his clothing to create a kind of armor that will protect him from the weapons of his enemies. Occasionally, he will feed the beast of marketing and production known as Eric Hirschberg pieces of this gold so as to keep up its strength. By doing this, he ensures that plenty of trailers are produced to entice gullible victims into the "Activision Cavern"- where he enslaves their minds with map and DLC packs, and promises of new games for the CoD series. He then feeds off of them for as much money as he can like some kind of bipedal spider or leech. Legend tells that Valve followed in Kotick's steps not long after this with their own Team Fortress 2, replacing the Activision model featuring map packs with... with... HATS...[/QUOTE] To be fair, you can craft all the stuff in TF2 you can pay for, so long as gather months worth of scrap metal, mail in 100 box tops, and slather your nude body in goat's blood during the first full moon of the harvest season while hats burn upon an altar.

[QUOTE=Badballer;30154595]I feel sorry for those with Xbox Live.[/QUOTE] xbox live is $50 a year

[QUOTE=JerryK;30156917]xbox live is $50 a year[/QUOTE] Pay for xbox live, pay for game, pay for elite, pay for dlc.

The worst part of this is that it will be a financial success. After all, they would never do it unless it made certain profit.

private

"There's a lot of money to be made here." I love how they aren't hiding their intentions at all. Most companies would say that they are committed to providing players with extensive content and patches.

[QUOTE=jaykray;30156940]Pay for xbox live, pay for game, pay for elite, pay for dlc.[/QUOTE] Pay for game twice a year. They will probably go for two a year.

[quote]hyper-realistic combat-simulation game[/quote] sssssssuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[QUOTE=garychencool;30157215]sssssssuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee[/QUOTE] ARMA 2 Is in the background. stifling massive quantaties of laughter.

"you dont have to buy it" No I dont HAVE to buy the rest of the content from a game I already payed for

Even source did this for free back in 2004 with server side mods. But it's really really smart marketing by Activision, taking pay for something that's supposed to be free. Fucking Genius.

[QUOTE=koeniginator;30155927]Sorry for the late reply, but we haven't seen any deserts or middle eastern areas in any of the trailers and other media we've seen so far, nor have I seen any of the settings in the trailers before. In fact, here's a leaked list of mission locations: [sp] Dharmasala, India New York, New York A plane transporting the president of Russia A town in Sierra Leone London, England Mogadishu, Somalia Hamburg, Germany Paris, France Prague, Czech Republic A castle in the Czech mountains Berlin, Germany The Kremlin in Moscow, Russia Dubai, United Arab Emirates Washington. D.C.[/sp] we haven't had a CoD take place in ANY of these modern locations, besides the one [sp]taking place in a plane.[/sp] Sure it's going to look similar to MW2, it's a sequel. Most sequels look very similar to their previous title. (Look at portal 1 to portal 2 for instance.) And shut the fuck up about the story. We get it, CoD has kind of far fetched storylines, that's not the same as having no story at all. (CS:S has no story)[/QUOTE] CS:S also isn't $60-110 CS:S has full mod/map support CS:S has constant updates We've never paid for CS:S maps [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] And comparing a cod sequel to Portal 1 and Portal 2 is fucking ridiculous

[QUOTE=jaykray;30156940]pay for dlc.[/QUOTE] I believe the point of this service is so that you get the dlc included as long as you pay for it.

Sad thing is, everyone will pay anyway.

I said after MW2 I would only support Treyarch releases. Granted Blackops wasnt the best, but it was sure as hell a lot better than MW2. MW3, hahaha. Fuckoff.

[QUOTE=The very best;30158193]CS:S also isn't $60-110 CS:S has full mod/map support CS:S has constant updates We've never paid for CS:S maps [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] And comparing a cod sequel to Portal 1 and Portal 2 is fucking ridiculous[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that CS:S is worse or better, i'm just saying that's an example of a game without story. Why shouldn't I compare a CoD sequel to Portal 2? The only real difference between them is that it was 4-3 years as opposed to just one year later the sequel was made, but if anything that only proves my point that even after 4 years, they are still strikingly similar graphically

[QUOTE=koeniginator;30155927] In fact, here's a leaked list of mission locations: [sp]Dubai, United Arab Emirates[/sp] [/QUOTE] That's it, this locks the fact that I'm not going to buy this game. I don't want to see a beautiful city where I have lived be to torn apart in a game just because it's located in Arabia.

[QUOTE=koeniginator;30158802]I'm not saying that CS:S is worse or better, i'm just saying that's an example of a game without story. Why shouldn't I compare a CoD sequel to Portal 2? The only real difference between them is that it was 4-3 years as opposed to just one year later the sequel was made, but if anything that only proves my point that even after 4 years, they are still strikingly similar graphically[/QUOTE] There's so much dumb in this post, it hurts my brain.

[QUOTE=koeniginator;30158802]The only real difference between them is that it was 4-3 years as opposed to just one year later the sequel was made, but if anything that only proves my point that even after 4 years, they are still strikingly similar graphically[/QUOTE] IMO, there isn't much Portal/Source engine can improve on. It looks fantastic as it is. COD however has a fuckton of things they can improve on visually. Sure, Source engine can do with a few more touches, but the IW engine [i][u]needs[/u][/i] more improvements.

Bet some idiot will subscribe to it

[QUOTE=koeniginator;30158802]I'm not saying that CS:S is worse or better, i'm just saying that's an example of a game without story. Why shouldn't I compare a CoD sequel to Portal 2? The only real difference between them is that it was 4-3 years as opposed to just one year later the sequel was made, but if anything that only proves my point that even after 4 years, they are still strikingly similar graphically[/QUOTE] CSS doesn't need a story because it has no singleplayer component nor a need for one; it delivers precisely what the price tag justifies. COD on the other hand is not only a full-priced game, but also flaunts its campaign as a central game feature.

[QUOTE=DaKa;30159188]Bet some idiot will subscribe to it[/QUOTE] Clan retards and bro gamers will definitely subscribe to it

[QUOTE=JinkoMK;30158981]IMO, there isn't much Portal/Source engine can improve on. It looks fantastic as it is. COD however has a fuckton of things they can improve on visually. Sure, Source engine can do with a few more touches, but the IW engine [i][u]needs[/u][/i] more improvements.[/QUOTE] Are you blind or just jumping on the steam=betterthaneverything bandwagon? Cod has way better graphics than pretty much all source games. But yeah this is sad because the only way to stop these money-grabbers would be to boycott but so many people will pay for this bullshit :(

Portal is a crappy comparison because Portal 1 was not a full game - It was an experiment that was never expected to become as popular as it did. Portal 2 was made with the aim of delivering what the prequel did not have; A proper exploration of the plot and the circumstances leading up to the game events, and a full-length singleplayer. The CoD series on the other hand has as far as I'm aware been mostly repeating itself game after game.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;30150632]Activision has the best business and marketing models. Make a game at a low cost, sell it for sixty, add shitloads of useless expansions and extra services, and rake in the cash. It's fucking perfect.[/QUOTE] The perfect market for completely stupid people

[QUOTE=JinkoMK;30158981]IMO, there isn't much Portal/Source engine can improve on. It looks fantastic as it is. COD however has a fuckton of things they can improve on visually. Sure, Source engine can do with a few more touches, but the IW engine [i][u]needs[/u][/i] more improvements.[/QUOTE] They need to make a new source engine, the one they're using is waaay to old now

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;30159587]They need to make a new source engine, the one they're using is waaay to old now[/QUOTE] "Lol it's old it sucks" Portal 2 is a beautiful game with basically the best physics in all of gaming. Why, exactly, would they need a new engine?

[QUOTE=TraderRager;30159838]"Lol it's old it sucks" Portal 2 is a beautiful game with basically the [B]best physics in all of gaming.[/B] Why, exactly, would they need a new engine?[/QUOTE] All you have to demonstrate that with in the game is a couple boxes and spheres coupled with shit like player velocity and gravity. There are plenty of games out there with better physics.

I shall enjoy the singleplayer But not the multiplayer, apparently.