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

So it's essentially a pay to use Halo Waypoint with extra map packs? I can see why some CoD fanboys would go for it.

[QUOTE=Lebowski;30159986]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.[/QUOTE] Name one. :colbert:

As with retarded idea's such as this 3lit3 shit i explode in a mass rage of how retarded this is but.........im not which is strange, i guess i finally get it and think let the Activision retards run the CoD franchise into the floor i really couldn't give a shit about CoD anymore, i say let the giant tools buy they're "subscription" i will feel better off knowing im not a giant fucking sucker. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] The only thing that worries me is if this somehow gets a lot of people doing it ( which no doubt it will ) and they other companies get the idea to try it ( Dont Even Fucking Think About It EA! ) [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;30158340]I believe the point of this service is so that you get the dlc included as long as you pay for it.[/QUOTE] which is fucking stupid because the only DLC they ever do is a Map pack every few month's if i was ever going to pay for CoD like this i'd expect new maps weapons gametypes addons every fucking week!

It's a nice idea but it should be part of the game, not yet another paid for upgrade.

[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] Boy am I looking forward to seeing the loose plot stringing these together.

[QUOTE=TraderRager;30159838]"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] They're just reusing it over and over again, they need to make a new one now

[QUOTE=TraderRager;30160771]Name one. :colbert:[/QUOTE] For one, the Unreal Engine has better physics.

Can we start some kind of campaign against this?

[quote] hyper-realistic combat[/quote] Yeah, pretty sure every ground troop in Afghanistan has an ACR with FMJ, ACOG, M203, silencer, and they are armed with slight of hand pro, steady aim pro, and stopping power pro with a RPG7.

It's basically facebook with added CoD leaderboards and CoD shit.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;30159395]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] I am only comparing them graphically, I never said anything about CoD having a better story than portal either. Stop taking every chance you get to say some crap about CoD being a shitty rehash or whatnot. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Im Crimson;30159254]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] I didn't say anything negative about CS:S, so there's no need to defend or justify it's lack of a story. I was just giving a proper example of a game that lacks a story.

You know a developer that is in such denial as to say it is a hyper-realistic combat-simulation game is definitely gonna be run by an asshole, and what do you know, it is and has been for a long time. Good bye Call of duty, we'll hardly miss yee!

[QUOTE=geoface;30162646]You know a developer that is in such denial as to say it is a hyper-realistic combat-simulation game is definitely gonna be run by an asshole, and what do you know, it is and has been for a long time. Good bye Call of duty, we'll hardly miss yee![/QUOTE] That's what the WSJ is calling it, not the developers. edit 1000th post :toot:

I love Call of Duty, but Activision Blizzard Inc. can suck my dick. I buy their rehash games, I even buy their dumb DLC, but I will never pay for subscription games. EVER.

I told one of the Call of Duty fanboys on the bus this morning about this, he said "So? I'll still pay for it". :frown:

[QUOTE]hyper-realistic combat-simulation game[/QUOTE] HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH OH GOD MY LUNGS HURT.

Well, it's not like Valve isn't milking money through DLC-kinda. Hell, what other approaches there are to online game business other than DLC? Valve (among other things, they are very successful), Blizzard or Activision, they all do this, and some indie companies are probably doing it too because they have to get money

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;30163042]Well, it's not like Valve isn't milking money through DLC-kinda. Hell, what other approaches there are to online game business other than DLC? Valve (among other things, they are very successful), Blizzard or Activision, they all do this, and some indie companies are probably doing it too because they have to get money[/QUOTE] Valve is just releasing tiny little overpriced cosmetics in the game, and while I do still hate that, it's not nearly as bad as $15 for five maps that Valve would give for free. [QUOTE=Electrocuter;30163031]HAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH OH GOD MY LUNGS HURT.[/QUOTE] I agree it's not realistic, but do we need so many goddamn posts about people laughing about that. Jeez.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;30163042]Well, it's not like Valve isn't milking money through DLC-kinda. Hell, what other approaches there are to online game business other than DLC? Valve (among other things, they are very successful), Blizzard or Activision, they all do this, and some indie companies are probably doing it too because they have to get money[/QUOTE] Microtransactions

I seriously thought this was a joke for about 5 minutes after entering the thread. Fuck off Activision.

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;30163100]Valve is just releasing tiny little overpriced cosmetics in the game, and while I do still hate that, it's not nearly as bad as $15 for five maps that Valve would give for free.[/QUOTE] Not to mention this is monthly subscription content, it's worse than DLC, at least with DLC you buy it it yours forever, now it's pay every month so you can keep it.

well... at least they're not charging you outright for multiplayer. Oh wait.. Oh fuck I should not have said that. Ah well, still buying it, I'll just deal without expansion packs until Kotick finally gets murdered by a pissed of Guitar Hero fan.

[QUOTE=TraderRager;30160771]Name one. :colbert:[/QUOTE] (almost) Anything with PhysX. Anything recent with the Unreal engine Anything with good cloth physics. Uhh. The two Star Wars games with the highly destructible environments and euphoria... Anything with euphoria ragdoll related. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] Hell, the simple barriers you get to blast apart in Witcher 2 have more realistic physics than a stack of bricks does in the Source Engine.

[IMG]http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/7441/ss20110531232829.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/976/ss20110531232848.png[/IMG] confirmed mw3's price - it'll be free, not 60 dollars lets party

ohohohohoho

[QUOTE=Lebowski;30164593](almost) Anything with PhysX. Anything recent with the Unreal engine Anything with good cloth physics. Uhh. The two [B]Star Wars games with the highly destructibl[/B]e environments and euphoria... Anything with euphoria ragdoll related. [/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFBuseEx64[/media] Digital Molecular Matter

[quote]a monthly subscription for bonus content[/quote] As if the console gamers aren't used to that by now... [img]http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/xbox_live_220_pmnth.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Lebowski;30164593](almost) Anything with PhysX. Anything recent with the Unreal engine Anything with good cloth physics. Uhh. The two Star Wars games with the highly destructible environments and euphoria... Anything with euphoria ragdoll related. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] Hell, the simple barriers you get to blast apart in Witcher 2 have more realistic physics than a stack of bricks does in the Source Engine.[/QUOTE] While I'm not defending Source's dated Havok 2 modification, I must say that I have a problem with a lot of high-end games having "choppy" physics that look as if the physical interactions are taking place at 25 frames per second while the rest of the game is running fast. Source's physics are very smooth (when they work at all). Crysis had somewhat choppy physics. Cryostasis had VERY choppy physics (even if it had cloth physics).

I will stick with Arma3 thank you very much.

"A few months back, when asked what his one wish would be for his company, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said “I would have Call of Duty be an online subscription service tomorrow,” which understandably had gamers worried that Call of Duty’s multiplayer modes might come with an added monthly fee in future. Activision have spoken out today to firmly put an end to those rumours. Speaking to IndustryGamers, Activision CEO Eric Hirshberg said “are we going to be charging for multiplayer? The answer is no,” adding that “the experience you have out of the box, connecting with the online community to play Call of Duty is absolutely integral to the experience and we’ll never charge for that. It’s not going to be something we’ll attempt to monetize; it’s part of the package.” He continues, saying “there are certainly a lot of behavioral shifts towards long-standing online relationships… But at the end of the day, all I’m trying to get across is I can unequivocally say we will never, ever charge for the multiplayer.”