Multi Call of Duty 3 Cheaper on PS3 and Xbox 360

Demon_Skeith

Demon_Skeith

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Credits
52,564
Steal Penalty
You're Rich Money Bags Award
Profile Music
Announced today, it was revealed that Call of Duty 3 will be releasing on the last gen consoles Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 for $49.99 USD instead of the usual $60 USD.

The reason being is that last gen can not handle the offline campaign mode and will also not include the weapon paint shop or eSports tools due to hardware issues. They will still have the online multiplayer and zombie modes.


So yeah, are you happy about this? Do you think they should have slashed the game amount more?
 
I guess really it makes sense for them to cut the price, people on 360 and PS3 will not be happy about the lack of single-player I don't think but it is still better than the alternatives (i.e. not making as good as a game so it works on old-gen, or not releasing on old-gen at all)
 
I agree it should have gotten a bigger cut. Single player is still a massive aspect of the game. The fact is they spent all that time and money to make it on PS4/XB1 only to cut it on last gen is not a great signal. It's like they're saying they can't even be bothered to try making it work on last gen.

Plus multiplayer only games tend not to do so well. Look at Titanfall. It was touted as this amazing experience and from what I've been hearing it's pretty well a ghost town now. Evolve was another big one and it's online has dropped off as well.

So really, I think they should only charge maybe $20-$30 instead of $60. Last gen players are only getting a portion of the game, so they shouldn't have to pay basically full price still.
 
VirusZero said:
I agree it should have gotten a bigger cut. Single player is still a massive aspect of the game. The fact is they spent all that time and money to make it on PS4/XB1 only to cut it on last gen is not a great signal. It's like they're saying they can't even be bothered to try making it work on last gen.

Plus multiplayer only games tend not to do so well. Look at Titanfall. It was touted as this amazing experience and from what I've been hearing it's pretty well a ghost town now. Evolve was another big one and it's online has dropped off as well.

So really, I think they should only charge maybe $20-$30 instead of $60. Last gen players are only getting a portion of the game, so they shouldn't have to pay basically full price still.
Click to expand...

Don't forget this is Call of Duty, pretty much played for its online play only. When I got ghost the offline campaign mode was a really big shame and had nothing to it with online sucking. The series hasn't been worth its money of late IMO.

And don't forget about the history of MMOs videos that makers barely break even for game cost and server management.
 
Yes, I recall the MMO video. However that is a bit of a different situation given that CoD tends to recycle the same engine and backend components so their costs are lower. They also tend not to have nearly as much content either so that also reduces cost. I mean if they develop 20 maps at first that's a fraction compared to something like Destiny (think of on the Moon alone how varied the environment is... from the Hive temple under ground, to the entrance to them, to the installation at the start to the open pit section where Crota sleeps.) which probably has a good 10-15 maps on it's own in just that section.

Though I don't think the online of CoD is the sole reason people buy/play it. Sure a lot of people continue playing for the multi, but it isn't the sole reason. And like I mentioned, online only games tend not to fare well. (There are always a few that do great, but most do not. For every Destiny there are 4 Tabula Rasa.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top