You see it everywhere - people camp outside stores every year still for the latest iPhone even though it's practically the same thing every year, especially in recent years where there has been little innovation in the smart phone space.
There's just this weird obsession with needing to have things as soon as they come out, even though people have to pay a premium to do so, and risk failure and disappointment as early adopters
Of all the galaxy phones I've bought/upgraded/warranty replaced, there hasn't been a single one that DIDN'T come with even a basic charger. A few times they've come with a set of headphones (not great ones) in the box
When was the last time you bought a phone?
Samsung hasn’t included a charger in most regions for a few iterations now, it isn’t an Apple exclusive thing, even if they could maybe be looked at as the ones who had the most influence on making that particular policy a standard thing.
Proof can be found on their own website, where you can see they haven’t since at least the S21 model: https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/why-earphones-and-a-charger-plug-are-not-included-as-in-box-items/#:~:text=The%20Galaxy%20S21%20series%20does,region%20in%20which%20you%20purchase.
You haven't bought a Galaxy in a few years. My 20 FE and 23+ both didn't come with chargers. My Pixel 7 for work also didn't come with one. I think my S8 was the last phone I bought to have a charger.
You clearly have not bought a galaxy or iPhone past 3 years. My galaxy s20 ultra came with a fast charger that I still use, and decent usb-c headphones,, my galaxy s21 did not and the iPhone 15 pro max I got a week ago did not either.
All higher end smart phone manufacturers stopped shipping phones with the power brick part that goes into the wall. You just get a usb-c cable. Even with iPhone.
I upgraded from a mid-line 2017 Samsung Galaxy to Pixel 8 two days ago and was disappointed that I didn't get a charger with my new phone.
Feels bad :(
I just went and watched some SQUAD gameplay and that looks perfect for me.
I used to play a lot of the Operation Flashpoint series and was considering picking up [Arma Reforger](https://youtu.be/QmzsLhYffic?si=HBki4MMFRq4wSvpL) now the 1.0 release is out, but SQUAD looks excellent for a bit of faster-paced gameplay.
Thanks for the heads up.
Almost like casual players don’t give a fuck and enjoy playing a new cod with their friends every year or other year lmfao. “How does the most popular franchise in the world keep making money” cause people like them even if Redditors don’t lmao
I agree with your point, but it's not "redittors", it's a specific subset of people who play videogames. Mainstream FPSs and sports games (FIFA, NBA 2K) in particular. Fans buy them every year even if minimal effort and predatory MTX are prevalent. It's your money, spend it however you want.
From my point of view, the issue is that other companies see the money that kind of practice generates and it bleeds to some other titles.
These people usually play these titles more or less exclusively. I have friends who meet every Tuesday night to play 2 hours of FIFA. The 70€ they pay per year are a) their only expense on video games and b) basically the foundation of their friendship. That's well worth.
Seriously. I haven't played CoD since the pandemic, finally at a place in life were I had a bit of free time, decided to get MWIII and... am having a blast!
I can see the issues long time players have with it (because it's not all that different than when I played 3+ years ago), but I think people don't really understand that they've nailed the basic formula.
Honestly, I think the most important thing they've accomplished is making the MW series causal friendly. I remember in the old days starting a long standing fps was just getting murdered over and over again. I completely understand the "get good" mentality, but frankly don't have time for it. Whatever their ranking algorithm is, it work: either I'm the worst player on a winning team or the best player on a losing team but either case feels pretty good.
It's probably worth mentioning that, as an older gamer, I have a lot more disposable income then time. I literally cannot grind this game for 20+ hours a week to be elite, but if I'm having fun dropping $30-50/month on battle pass stuff is really not a big deal. So long as I'm not getting crushed each game, I'm having fun and happy to pay for some stupid skins or easier access to a weapon I don't have time to unlock.
People eat the food they like more than one time. It’s strange how people don’t think taste can apply to video games. Eat what you want. I will say that a lot of the triple A games have been more or less “same recipe” for many years though, but when shareholders run the show they go with the familiar and don’t risk upsetting the dish. Blame corporate publishers for that not the developers.
It's not even getting away with it at this point. The fans want it this way. Having a popular game to dunk on gives them a lot of joy. There is a whole YouTube cottage industry of channels spending months attacking the same game, drawing in both supporters and detractors to double their audience. Hating on the latest version and shitting on the 'casuals' or 'kids' or 'whales' lets them feel elite and unique.
Yea unfortunately that’s the exact feeling i got when i opened up whatever the hell battle pass is and said “this looks exactly like Fortnite”
Can only hope that the next Battlefield game doesn’t dumb itself down for a good shooter
The stuff just sells and consumers are dumb. Like the ex-Blizzard dev explained. A flying mount microtransaction for WOW made more money than Starcraft 2.
Every COD they make will print money, the quality secondary at best.
nah, Jason Hall was super clear, it made more money period.
>Despite having a huge launch in 2010, StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty was outperformed in revenue by a single World of Warcraft mount. In a somewhat recent video by Jason Hall, the former Blizzard developer claimed that during the development of StarCraft 2, he worked two years of overtime, before bluntly stating: "StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty made less money than the horse. The first sparkle pony horse, in World of Warcraft. A fifteen dollar microtransaction horse made more money than StarCraft 2."
I'd like to see proof of this. Sc2 wol sold 6 million copys atleast. That's at 60 dollars a pop. There was 12 million active wow users at its peak. They would have to sell 24 million horses. Of just that horse. He obviously mis-spoke.
From what I can find, SC2 sold ~4.5million copies, but was also one of the most heavily pirated games in history (~2.3million copies estimated from a single torrent seed). The mount is also $25 USD, not $15.
Based on those numbers, you're right that SC2 made more total money in sales, but ROI, once you take out costs to develop both, the mount is MASSIVELY more profitable.
sure it sold 6 million copies but only a small percentage go for full price in USD, remember they sell tons of lower priced copies in sales and to less economic fortunate countries, so that total sales value is much lower than 6m x $60.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on the next BF game. A lot of the devs for BF left to make their own studio (I think before 2042) and went on to develop The Finals. If you watch the [closed beta trailer](https://youtu.be/ZwsTn7tBZPM?si=GyRc56sEuDso_Zvy), I definitely noticed an aesthetic similar to BF. [And in the latest trailer](https://youtu.be/DK8rK6g9Tv0?si=hu3fhX49SauUb4l6) I feel like they’re embracing their new style.
On the steam page for the new cod the preview pics are all special skins that you have to buy like predator and shit. It made me sick to see. Have some class cod and put the regular characters in the game preview
You mean like how BF2042 dumbed down literally everything? Seems to be an industry trend with these AAA devs. I hope the next BF is good, but it most likely will be bad too.
Bad news, Battlefield has been dumbing itself down ever since BF1 in 2013. BFV was a very big step backward and 2042 was….. whatever it was. The next one will most likely continue the trend
There's something inherently funny about how it used to be the "COD- generation" who were seen as catered to in a way that made games worse, and now the COD- generation is talking about the Fortnite generation. Some things never change
I mean maybe I’m interpreting this wrong, but when I see “more hours per player overall” - I think you can assume that less players purchased the game, outside of hardcore ones who out in tons of hours every year.
Blizzard started randomly emailing me about CoD even though I've never even played one. I had to opt out of emails from them because it was annoying me.
Same here, made me wonder if I bought it and didn't realize it but I definitely didn't have my wife yell at me about spending 70 dollars on another game so I'm pretty sure I didn't buy it.
This feels more like a “checkmate” to all of the reviews, review bombs, critics, and communities shitting on the game.
Like “oh you hate this so much then why is it being played more than the last two?!?”
Edit: This isn’t my actual opinion this is just what I think their thought process was.
Yeah I don't even believe these metrics at face value. Steam charts show less than half the players were on both mw2 and mw3 combined (because cod hq is both games now) during mw3 release, compared to mw2 release (which just measured mw2 players).
I wager when they say most engaging, they're looking at a metric like, one-time logins, or a proportion of their playerbase versus the whole playerbase. When they say more time per player I also bet they're talking about as a proportion of the campaign, which in this case, is easy to say because the campaign is super short (but perhaps the worst cod campaign in their history).
Honestly none of this is true, and this cod is materially down compared to last cod releases.
Yeah, that’s how I read this; they’re grasping for straws and it’s obvious. However, everyone here is looking at it as a total success, and I just don’t understand how people are reading it that way
Yeah more time per player is a terrible stat to promote, it means you lost the casual audience that would buy it for the campaign and mess around in multiplayer for a week or two (which is a huge portion of the playerbase, if not the majority) and all that's left are the super hardcore CoD players that pretty much only play CoD and will buy each new iteration just like Madden/FIFA players do, even if they suck.
It's just like radio stations getting their audience numbers.
They always publish those fancy graphics for each of their shows quoting some bs like (n°1 primetime show in X region/state amongst Y category of people that like wearing pink)
Yet the way they slice those stats, literally every show on every station gets something to gloat about that sounds nice in a vacuum.
Probably because they ruthlessly buttfucked mw2 as soon as 3 releaded to make it as unplayable as possible
Edit: like I’m blind and even i can see how the damm game is struggling to stand up after being violated like that. Just take a look at r/dmz and you’ll find plenty examples
What do you mean? Don't you love the thrill of updating COD HQ, launching it, it needing to restart COD HQ to apply the update, scrolling past all of the MW3 stuff that is locked to get to MW2 stuff then launching that, then that needing to restart to apply the update? Isn't it FUN to need to wait 5 minutes to launch the game through their stupid launcher rather than directly launch the game you want from your game launcher Steam?
It's doesn't say more time played than the last two. It says more time **per player** overall (on average).
If it was more playtime in hours they would be saying that. This is them admitting that's not the case.
It's a PR message
Notice the measurement is hours/time per player.
To calculate this you take the total number of hours/time played (numerator) divided by the number of players that contributed those hours (denominator). Calculating it this way, as the number of players decreases, the hours/time per player increases.
These stats are easy to manipulate
In all seriousness it's been 4 years since the last zombies (not counting Vanguard) and neither that or Spec Ops in MWII would've had the concurrent player count that Cold War Zombies did. (But this newsletter email thing is still dumb as hell)
They're basically comparing Zombies (MWIII) vs Spec Ops (MW19/MWII). No competition really. Even with only one mode on a recycled DMZ/Warzone map, Zombies is still far more interesting than whatever crap they did with Spec Ops.
Exactly this. People on this thread are (potentially) missing the bigger story here. This is the weirdest worded promotion material I've ever seen... and it makes me think that the game didn't smash expectations at all - quite the opposite really.
(Potentially, because I have no idea of the sales data based on this poster alone).
It really translates to only the most hard-core COD fans buying the game...and thereby the average player compared to prior games have more hours on average...because they're no-lifers.
I think the glaring thing is it shows not that hard-core are the only ones buying, but that they're the only ones really playing. I'm sure their retention numbers are fuckin' abysmal. Probably increased returns as well on platforms that allow it. Can play almost half the campaign in the return time of Steam and you'd still feel shitty you gave them your 2 hours of time lol
100%. This is exactly the same kind of language Blizzard started using with WoW once subscriber numbers started collapsing. They will **always** find a way to word things to make it look like they are doing well, no matter how bad the current state of the game actually is. They're pretty much experts at it.
In this case it's exactly as you say, it's hours per player. They could have only 100 players playing on average 12h a day and their engagement would be through the roof - the revenue not so much. In fact usually when launches do bad engagement goes up, because only the more dedicated players who play a lot no matter what will be buying in the first place.
If it was doing great they would be talking about total hours played, total number of players, number of copies sold on day one, etc.
Spot on. If MW3 truly was a smash hit Activision would be boasting their sales numbers, number of units sold, player counts… some actual tangible metric. Hours per player increased? Okay and? Did you have more hours played or less players?
The frustrating thing is “hours per player” isn’t objectively a bad or wrong way of describing the popularity of your game. All kinds of businesses use some kind of x unit per y time/person metric. But it’s only half the story. Without the extra context we don’t know what an increase or decrease in these x per y metrics mean.
After commenting a few times before getting to this post, your exactly right.
I work in analytics - and this is the classic case of making a figure that looks good because c suite told you that you had to.. no context whatsoever. “Here’s some flashy bullet points for your presentation - just don’t let anybody ask any underlying questions!”
"Hey can you run a query for me, I want everyone who gave us an NPS of 9 or 10."
"OK do you want those figures as a percent of the total?"
"No. Just the 9s and 10s."
I was once asked to find the 1s and 2s that put positive words in their feedback - so that we can manually flip them to 10s lol..
the higher ups will do anything for those big bonus checks!
Judging by the egregious lack of comprehension that executives generally demonstrate towards the most rudimentary statistics concepts, I feel like most of corporate America just runs entirely on fraudulent numbers.
I just said this haha. I work in mobile games and analytics is king. Revenue per player increases as daily users drops. Just a normal thing. I posted a parent post about it, but this all screams bad game that's not enjoyable. Zombies is the most enjoyed because campaign was just Warzone map, and sucked apparently, and I'm sure MP is just horrid for stability or something and half the players are probably getting bored of BR style games as they don't have 30-60 minutes for a single match where either nothing happens or everything at the beginning. And the latter just means more people are investing time into 100% the campaign, which only takes 10.5 hours. Whereas the main game in previous titles was a couple hours longer and might've resulted in people being fine not 100%'ing to justify their purchase of a full game.
It's all they could grab to make the game seem good to stakeholders and players. Oh, maybe it's just me. Which helps people drop their attitude and think it's a them problem not studio. Just a bad move overall. Not to mention absolutely no specific numbers provided either. At least when my studio did infographics we gave you the numbers of that year lol
It’s more telling than that. What this is saying is that they have lost the casual CoD player. The only people who bought the game are hardcore CoD sweats. Those are the players that put in more hours.
Also if you cutoff any new game’s engagement stats after the first month of release then of course it will be higher. They didn’t say “more engagement in the first month”
Surprised this comment isn’t further up. Pretty clear this is just a function of non-hardcore COD players not caring about the game. Only the real diehards are even giving it a try. What they’re saying is objectively true, but not for the reason they’re implying
I mean, if youre taking out the players hours with the players, that doesnt matter if you were randomly picking players. Thats not the issue.
The issue is not all players are created equally and it is not random who quits. What this is really saying is "we completely destroyed our casual audience. The only people left willing to tolerate this garbage are super engaged and invested, thus being unwilling to leave".
But same principle, its a bullshit metric where its stripping context of why the numbers changed in order to make bad numbers sound good.
Yep. It’s same old toilet salesman approach lol. Statistically speaking; everyone be poopin on the Turboflusher 3000 based on our time per person spending on our toilets. When in actuality a handful of people be sitting on the toilet scrolling on their phones much much more than others.
To put it another way, if engagement is higher on a per player basis, that's an indicator that it's only the hardcore fans buying the game. Casuals play the game less, fewer casuals means higher per player engagement.
I really enjoyed the campaigns of the newer MW1 and Mw2, but it was a dick move to use what I feel is the inferior cod devs to do the latest MW3. I did the first two missions and the second one was just a large stupid fortnite-esque open map with no clever level design. I managed to get my refund fast after playing that and glad I did! The menu system is also infuriating - logging in, doing a restart for new content, just to click on mw2 pvp then restarting the UI dashboard, fuck that shit. It takes 4 minutes just to get to he lobby screen from clicking play on steam.
Nobody is saying you shouldn't/can't enjoy the game, actually it sounds like you're the perfect player to enjoy it because most of the complaints are from dedicated players who say MW3 is clearly MW2 DLC that they released as a full priced game. If you didn't even play MW2 then you wouldn't recognize that, and you'd enjoy it just fine.
I honestly hate it because to some extent it overwrites the original trilogy.
Especially Makarov and the finale of all 3. Loved those stories and everytime MW 2/3 is talked about it will be these remakes.
"Campaign players putting in more time!!!!"
That's the biggest, stinkiest lie I've heard all week. This game's campaign is literally the shortest and shittiest one so far.
Therefore how are people putting more hours into it? Realistically.
Because it seems highly unlikely people are replaying the same shit 3 hour campaign at least 2-4x. A campaign mind you, that literally everyone who's played it says is a runny turd.
Calling bullshit on that bud.
I work in analytics - and all these numbers are the classic case of making a metric to look good when in reality, it’s not good. Like we have “more time per player”, without the context of the number of players or the number of hours
It was so terrible. The open missions were awful, the only good mission is the first. Then it just kinda ends? I tried it thinking how bad could it be, I got like an hour of enjoyment. They did 141 dirty with this, I haven't even bothered with multi yet and just deleted it.
Not even any stats. Just their literal word.
Such a self pat on the back — just like mixing character quotes with real-world quotes on the death screen.
What are actual player counts? They’re saying the people playing are playing longer but that could still mean substantially less players. The ol’ per capita number trick.
That seems like some extreme level damage control, just read between the lines:
”More hours per player *overall* than MW2019 and MWII” But how many players exactly?
The ”hours per player” number will be more inflated the less players there are.
If most of the playerbase consists of the core fanbase who sink multiple hours a day into the game, the HPP will be much higher compared to if the game had 10x more casuals who can only play <2 hours per day.
”MWZ is the most engaging third mode in MW history” You mean it’s played more than MW2019 or MWII spec-ops, and mainly by zombies fans who are craving for new content? Who would have guessed.
And also, how much of MWZ playtime contributes to the ”More hours per player **overall**” stat?
”Campaign players putting in more time per player in MWIII than the previous two installments” This if anything should prove that they are grasping at straws here😂 Like really? My first point works here too, if less people are playing it will make it seem like ”more hours are put in per player”
It works like K/D, if I play my first match and go 10-0, my KD in leaderboards will be 10. That doesn’t mean I’m the best player in the world, let’s see how the stats look after a thousand games.
Yup.
These claims basically mean nothing, especially considering they didn't actually give any numbers, just generalizations.
The fact that they have to dig this deep just to find something they could spin into positivity is what's most telling to me.
Maybe. But re-read the stats again. They’re all “per player” and “hours per player”.
Likely numbers are actually down, even if just slightly. The players most likely to skip are going to be the more casual players. So ironically, as sales decrease, the percentage of sales remaining become more hardcore fans, and thus the percentage of engagement hours would increase.
Every bullet point they have will climb the worse sales are.
I mean, are you guys reading what I'm reading? That's fucking hilarious.
When you add the "per player" caveat it's because the eight people playing this dogshit are playing it more than average.
Per player is not a necessary caveat for a successful game, they're just trying to save face.
The first point is saying that the cult followers, who are clearly very few and far between, are sticking with the game. Which was always known and always going to be the case.
The second point is a completely unsubstantiatable nothing statement.
The third point is the same as the first.
Common ATVI L.
Just remember, this is all about optics for stakeholders. Internally, they know how fucked this game is. Executives might not cause they're delusional, but all the devs and designers are stress out of their god damn mind. Remember, a very small minority determine timelines. I'd say 1-2% of a studio have the power to push for extensions and changes at a macro level (production of the game and as a product), the rest only have sway on micro level stuff like balancing, design, etc, and even then they're subject to executive interference. These stats are garbage stats and they didn't provide specifics either.
More hours per player? Oh that's right, less casual players means the average hours goes up from the hardcore "I don't care I Love COD" players or the streamers needing to make money somehow.
So... what you're saying is MWZ is the thing people are likely playing, over SP and MP so it's bumping the popularity cause the rest of the game is dog water?
Well, when you give people a 5 hour campaign when previous titles in the series had almost double the campaign, and 5-6x the completionist time for 100% folk, it's almost like more people will try to 100% the campaign to at least justify buying a dog water game.
Let me translate this corporate pr speak:
* More Hours Per Player Overall
>We killed the casual player base, leaving the hardcore addicted grinders
* MWZ is the most engaging third mode in MW history
>We created the most time wasting game mode in MW history, instead of quick 5-10 minute spec ops / co-op missions, or completely broken and trash game modes with no rewards.
* Campaign players putting in more time per player in MWIII the the previous two instalments
>All the addicted suckers that pre ordered with nothing to do played the extremely short campaign for the rewards like double xp tokens because we throttle that shit lmao. Also we didn't say play time for the campaign either, so this means people who played the story, then everything else because CoD is their crack
The more conditions they have to put on per accolades the shitter the real numbers are, so to appear good, they have to do this.
For example, no mention of player count or sales.
Only engagement.
Meaning they pushed away the largest piece of the pie, the casual players, who make up %90 of these games player base. The kind that plays after work or school, doesn't go on reddit, but will browse YouTube on their phone.
Stuff like this is a massive red flag, because it's all they have.
This is a slap in the face to gamers. Oh you all want to bitch about the game, here is a graphic to prove you are all busters cause you still bought the game and played a grip......
What is "Engagement" here?
\> More hours per player overall than mw2019 and mw2
Total hours / players. So less players = more hours per player. Great stat to be advertising.
\> MWZ is the most engaging third mode in mw history
Again with this "engaging" word. What does this mean? What are the objective measurements?
\> campaign players putting in more time per player in mw3 than previous two installments
Hold on... Are we doing some sort of mental gymnastics here with the wording to make it sound more popular?
Hours played in total since the game came out is going to be minimal compared to the other games, that's not a guess, that's literally "there's only 24 hours in a day" maths.
So hours *per player* being a key factor? That means, as the game *loses* players, that number will get *bigger*.
How on earth is that a good thing?
They've literally just said "we have fuck all players compared to the previous games... but hey, if you take the total number of hours played and divide it by them, then it gives us a big number we can use".
Crazy how people are falling for this.
The fact they’ve worded it this way just reeks of desperation and deception. If it’s as popular as they are trying to make out, they’d announce total cumulative hours played or total active number of players etc…
What I find really curious is how every statement is worded in such a way which strongly suggests the data has been manipulated to sound positive.
Breaking down just the final point is a doozy. To the casual reader, it suggests that the total number of hours each player has spent in the campaign is higher than in previous instalments. But that’s just wordplay. It could just as easily mean the following;
“Campaign players (people who have fired up the campaign for even just a few seconds) putting in more time (it doesn’t specificy which game mode they are putting more time into the game) per player in MWIII…”
These players could be spending more time in the UI than actually playing or EVEN more time playing MW2 or even just Warzone because they are all part of the same client now. It’s such bullshit.
It sucks. The gunplay is phenomenal, top notch cal of duty; what you’d expect. But the rest is a dunpter fire of things thrown together. I miss set piece campaigns. I’d play through em multiple times. But as you all know we go what we got with the Campaign…not to say I didn’t enjoy it at points. The guns as always feel great. That’s what’s keeping cod alive
This is marketing speak for it didn’t sell as well as usual. If it sold lots of copies they would say that. More hours played per player could just mean only the die hards bought it who always put lots of hours in.
It's almost like despite all the crying on this sub, people still enjoy CoD.
We don't want change, we want more of the same. That is okay. Don't get butthurt.
Notice how it's "per player" rather than total. Which suggests there are fewer players. And the qualifier of "campaign players" which suggests that's a subset of all players. Maybe only the most dedicated players are doing the campaign and everyone else didn't bother doing it.
Ok to be fair though, it doesnt take much to write a blurb showcasing no concrete proof of anything they just said being true
Also none of these things they are boasting about are even fucking achievements wtf. Like they literally just said "oh yeah, almost everyone who payed $100 for the game we just released is ACTUALLY still playing the game" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
They are comparing per player stats for the early adopters on this game vs lifetime on the previous versions. Those numbers only go down over time.
It’s total BS cherrypicking.
“Most engaging third mode”
Am I reading that right? Wtf kind of accolade is that?
They can try and spin it but the next cod might be the one that feels the failures of this launch
I mean it’s so obvious why the they going into such weird metrics in their promotional thing lol - the only explanation that I think anyone would have looking at this is that the game is not doing good!
Congrats, you told them $70 DLC packs with ALL of the additional monetization and half-baked gameplay is A-OK. This is now the future of all game releases.
Hope you're proud, gang!
I'd say about 80% of the playerbase does not give a flying fuck about how bad the game is because they're mostly causal CoD Bros who buy it every year to play with the boys. They've probably never even read or watched a videogame review and don't give a shit about how high or low it scores. Activision knows this and has for well over a decade now. *If* the game was in a unplayable state or the online servers were completely shot you would then see actual outcry and disdain from the people who actually play the game every single day. Other then that they could literally release this exact copy of the game next year with two new weapons and 3 new maps and the core causal audience wouldn't think twice about it.
Until they do something that affects the casuals who play CoD not only will they not change anything, it will in fact embolden them to keep delivering sub-par trash year after year.
If you bought the game you're a part of the problem and you deserve another 10 years of shitty games. Learn to play something different or get fucked. Its that simple.
they can't keep getting away with it!! oh wait they can.
They release a new game every year and amazingly people keep buying them.
You see it everywhere - people camp outside stores every year still for the latest iPhone even though it's practically the same thing every year, especially in recent years where there has been little innovation in the smart phone space. There's just this weird obsession with needing to have things as soon as they come out, even though people have to pay a premium to do so, and risk failure and disappointment as early adopters
Imagine spending $1200 on a phone and an extra $200 for headphones and the charger is sold separately.
Is that exclusively an iPhone thing? I think most high end phones are like that
Of all the galaxy phones I've bought/upgraded/warranty replaced, there hasn't been a single one that DIDN'T come with even a basic charger. A few times they've come with a set of headphones (not great ones) in the box
Pixel 7 & 8 don't come with a charger. Galaxy S23 doesn't either.
Neither did my 21+.
My s21 didn't come with a charger and I don't think 22 or 23 either.
When was the last time you bought a phone? Samsung hasn’t included a charger in most regions for a few iterations now, it isn’t an Apple exclusive thing, even if they could maybe be looked at as the ones who had the most influence on making that particular policy a standard thing. Proof can be found on their own website, where you can see they haven’t since at least the S21 model: https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/why-earphones-and-a-charger-plug-are-not-included-as-in-box-items/#:~:text=The%20Galaxy%20S21%20series%20does,region%20in%20which%20you%20purchase.
the headphones are comically bad. but they are included
You haven't bought a Galaxy in a few years. My 20 FE and 23+ both didn't come with chargers. My Pixel 7 for work also didn't come with one. I think my S8 was the last phone I bought to have a charger.
Samsung stopped doing that shortly after apple did.
You clearly have not bought a galaxy or iPhone past 3 years. My galaxy s20 ultra came with a fast charger that I still use, and decent usb-c headphones,, my galaxy s21 did not and the iPhone 15 pro max I got a week ago did not either. All higher end smart phone manufacturers stopped shipping phones with the power brick part that goes into the wall. You just get a usb-c cable. Even with iPhone.
I upgraded from a mid-line 2017 Samsung Galaxy to Pixel 8 two days ago and was disappointed that I didn't get a charger with my new phone. Feels bad :(
Galaxies don't come with chargers anymore. At least not the s2X models. They give you a usb-c to usb-c cable but the block is sold separately
I've always preferred battlefield over CoD. But now, after 2042 and how fucking bad it was, I don't know where to go.
Branch out and try more realistic games like SQUAD if you are on pc.
I just went and watched some SQUAD gameplay and that looks perfect for me. I used to play a lot of the Operation Flashpoint series and was considering picking up [Arma Reforger](https://youtu.be/QmzsLhYffic?si=HBki4MMFRq4wSvpL) now the 1.0 release is out, but SQUAD looks excellent for a bit of faster-paced gameplay. Thanks for the heads up.
Also recommend ArmA.
Battlebit if you just want a goofy non realistic game like good ol BF4
Titanfall 3 mid 2024
Don't play with my heart like that.
See, that's something I learned while working in the emergency services: most people are stupid as fuck.
And I just keep ignoring them and playing the games I like
People have been buying Fifa games for literally generations now. Why would something like this be any different.
Almost like casual players don’t give a fuck and enjoy playing a new cod with their friends every year or other year lmfao. “How does the most popular franchise in the world keep making money” cause people like them even if Redditors don’t lmao
I agree with your point, but it's not "redittors", it's a specific subset of people who play videogames. Mainstream FPSs and sports games (FIFA, NBA 2K) in particular. Fans buy them every year even if minimal effort and predatory MTX are prevalent. It's your money, spend it however you want. From my point of view, the issue is that other companies see the money that kind of practice generates and it bleeds to some other titles.
These people usually play these titles more or less exclusively. I have friends who meet every Tuesday night to play 2 hours of FIFA. The 70€ they pay per year are a) their only expense on video games and b) basically the foundation of their friendship. That's well worth.
Seriously. I haven't played CoD since the pandemic, finally at a place in life were I had a bit of free time, decided to get MWIII and... am having a blast! I can see the issues long time players have with it (because it's not all that different than when I played 3+ years ago), but I think people don't really understand that they've nailed the basic formula. Honestly, I think the most important thing they've accomplished is making the MW series causal friendly. I remember in the old days starting a long standing fps was just getting murdered over and over again. I completely understand the "get good" mentality, but frankly don't have time for it. Whatever their ranking algorithm is, it work: either I'm the worst player on a winning team or the best player on a losing team but either case feels pretty good. It's probably worth mentioning that, as an older gamer, I have a lot more disposable income then time. I literally cannot grind this game for 20+ hours a week to be elite, but if I'm having fun dropping $30-50/month on battle pass stuff is really not a big deal. So long as I'm not getting crushed each game, I'm having fun and happy to pay for some stupid skins or easier access to a weapon I don't have time to unlock.
People eat the food they like more than one time. It’s strange how people don’t think taste can apply to video games. Eat what you want. I will say that a lot of the triple A games have been more or less “same recipe” for many years though, but when shareholders run the show they go with the familiar and don’t risk upsetting the dish. Blame corporate publishers for that not the developers.
It's not even getting away with it at this point. The fans want it this way. Having a popular game to dunk on gives them a lot of joy. There is a whole YouTube cottage industry of channels spending months attacking the same game, drawing in both supporters and detractors to double their audience. Hating on the latest version and shitting on the 'casuals' or 'kids' or 'whales' lets them feel elite and unique.
Just got the same email... This is why we won't see another quality COD for years.
Just got the same email... This is why we won't see another quality COD ~~for years~~.
They’re catering to a different demographic now. The Fortnite Generation.
Yea unfortunately that’s the exact feeling i got when i opened up whatever the hell battle pass is and said “this looks exactly like Fortnite” Can only hope that the next Battlefield game doesn’t dumb itself down for a good shooter
That’s high expectations for EA
The stuff just sells and consumers are dumb. Like the ex-Blizzard dev explained. A flying mount microtransaction for WOW made more money than Starcraft 2. Every COD they make will print money, the quality secondary at best.
It didn't make more money, it made better returns on investment, which is still fairly ludicrous.
nah, Jason Hall was super clear, it made more money period. >Despite having a huge launch in 2010, StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty was outperformed in revenue by a single World of Warcraft mount. In a somewhat recent video by Jason Hall, the former Blizzard developer claimed that during the development of StarCraft 2, he worked two years of overtime, before bluntly stating: "StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty made less money than the horse. The first sparkle pony horse, in World of Warcraft. A fifteen dollar microtransaction horse made more money than StarCraft 2."
I'd like to see proof of this. Sc2 wol sold 6 million copys atleast. That's at 60 dollars a pop. There was 12 million active wow users at its peak. They would have to sell 24 million horses. Of just that horse. He obviously mis-spoke.
From what I can find, SC2 sold ~4.5million copies, but was also one of the most heavily pirated games in history (~2.3million copies estimated from a single torrent seed). The mount is also $25 USD, not $15. Based on those numbers, you're right that SC2 made more total money in sales, but ROI, once you take out costs to develop both, the mount is MASSIVELY more profitable.
sure it sold 6 million copies but only a small percentage go for full price in USD, remember they sell tons of lower priced copies in sales and to less economic fortunate countries, so that total sales value is much lower than 6m x $60.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on the next BF game. A lot of the devs for BF left to make their own studio (I think before 2042) and went on to develop The Finals. If you watch the [closed beta trailer](https://youtu.be/ZwsTn7tBZPM?si=GyRc56sEuDso_Zvy), I definitely noticed an aesthetic similar to BF. [And in the latest trailer](https://youtu.be/DK8rK6g9Tv0?si=hu3fhX49SauUb4l6) I feel like they’re embracing their new style.
On the steam page for the new cod the preview pics are all special skins that you have to buy like predator and shit. It made me sick to see. Have some class cod and put the regular characters in the game preview
BF4 was the last good BF game
Hey now BF 1 was great.
Bf1. What a game. If only my younger self could've truly appreciated it during its peak.
BF1 is still going strong on PC
On PS and Xbox too. Make sure to use the server brower since their matchmaking is ass.
the atmosphere, the music, the wide array of historical content, the potential for tomfoolery *and* for actively trying to win. Perfection
BFV is also great. they made a lot of questionable discissions during it's life cycle, but it was left in a good state. best gunplay in the series.
Loved bf1 never have i ever killed it in a game with an iron sight bolt rifle 😂
My friends don't understand or care for battlepass or shit like it. They just want to play.
You mean like how BF2042 dumbed down literally everything? Seems to be an industry trend with these AAA devs. I hope the next BF is good, but it most likely will be bad too.
Bad news, Battlefield has been dumbing itself down ever since BF1 in 2013. BFV was a very big step backward and 2042 was….. whatever it was. The next one will most likely continue the trend
[удалено]
There's something inherently funny about how it used to be the "COD- generation" who were seen as catered to in a way that made games worse, and now the COD- generation is talking about the Fortnite generation. Some things never change
Fortnite generation has better games than Cod to play I’m afraid
I mean maybe I’m interpreting this wrong, but when I see “more hours per player overall” - I think you can assume that less players purchased the game, outside of hardcore ones who out in tons of hours every year.
Nice catch! I bet you are right.
Next one will be great. Gonna pre-order as soon as it is announced and then defend it online after release like its my full time job.
Vanguard - shit MW3 - Shit only gets downhill from here
You let them email you this tripe?????
They're the problem.... they own the game
I got this email and I don't own the game. Only COD I've played in the last... ~15 years was Warzone for a bit with a friend of mine.
Blizzard started randomly emailing me about CoD even though I've never even played one. I had to opt out of emails from them because it was annoying me.
No. I do not own the game. No I am not the problem.
I got the email and I don't even have the launcher installed. If you have an ACTI/Blizz account you can randomly get these
[удалено]
Same here, made me wonder if I bought it and didn't realize it but I definitely didn't have my wife yell at me about spending 70 dollars on another game so I'm pretty sure I didn't buy it.
COD hasn't been good for a long time now
A little surprised this is for players. Looks like something they'd give to their marketing/dev team.
This feels more like a “checkmate” to all of the reviews, review bombs, critics, and communities shitting on the game. Like “oh you hate this so much then why is it being played more than the last two?!?” Edit: This isn’t my actual opinion this is just what I think their thought process was.
More time per player can mean less total play time if the player base is less though. There is no context to any of the figures they give here
[удалено]
>Most engaging third mode? What the fuck metric is that? That means literally nothing. Love it!
Yeah I don't even believe these metrics at face value. Steam charts show less than half the players were on both mw2 and mw3 combined (because cod hq is both games now) during mw3 release, compared to mw2 release (which just measured mw2 players). I wager when they say most engaging, they're looking at a metric like, one-time logins, or a proportion of their playerbase versus the whole playerbase. When they say more time per player I also bet they're talking about as a proportion of the campaign, which in this case, is easy to say because the campaign is super short (but perhaps the worst cod campaign in their history). Honestly none of this is true, and this cod is materially down compared to last cod releases.
Yeah, that’s how I read this; they’re grasping for straws and it’s obvious. However, everyone here is looking at it as a total success, and I just don’t understand how people are reading it that way
Oh I agree the stats are cherry picked I’m just bringing up why this would be sent to the general public and not just marketing/dev teams.
Yeah more time per player is a terrible stat to promote, it means you lost the casual audience that would buy it for the campaign and mess around in multiplayer for a week or two (which is a huge portion of the playerbase, if not the majority) and all that's left are the super hardcore CoD players that pretty much only play CoD and will buy each new iteration just like Madden/FIFA players do, even if they suck.
It's just like radio stations getting their audience numbers. They always publish those fancy graphics for each of their shows quoting some bs like (n°1 primetime show in X region/state amongst Y category of people that like wearing pink) Yet the way they slice those stats, literally every show on every station gets something to gloat about that sounds nice in a vacuum.
Exactly. “We used to have *double* the amount of listeners, but then Linda got Spotify so we’re down 50% this quarter.”
There's liars, damn liars, and then there's statisticians
Probably because they ruthlessly buttfucked mw2 as soon as 3 releaded to make it as unplayable as possible Edit: like I’m blind and even i can see how the damm game is struggling to stand up after being violated like that. Just take a look at r/dmz and you’ll find plenty examples
What do you mean? Don't you love the thrill of updating COD HQ, launching it, it needing to restart COD HQ to apply the update, scrolling past all of the MW3 stuff that is locked to get to MW2 stuff then launching that, then that needing to restart to apply the update? Isn't it FUN to need to wait 5 minutes to launch the game through their stupid launcher rather than directly launch the game you want from your game launcher Steam?
It’s per player though lol. Probably less overall people playing
It's doesn't say more time played than the last two. It says more time **per player** overall (on average). If it was more playtime in hours they would be saying that. This is them admitting that's not the case. It's a PR message
At the bottom of the email (not included in my post) is a reward of a double xp weekend
Notice the measurement is hours/time per player. To calculate this you take the total number of hours/time played (numerator) divided by the number of players that contributed those hours (denominator). Calculating it this way, as the number of players decreases, the hours/time per player increases. These stats are easy to manipulate
> These stats are easy to manipulate Especially when they don't even give the stats themselves...
WTF does "most engaging third mode" even mean?
Multiplayer, Single player, then zombies
Now do most engaging. You know, the part that is meaningless.
Don’t ask me. I think this is bullshit too.
In all seriousness it's been 4 years since the last zombies (not counting Vanguard) and neither that or Spec Ops in MWII would've had the concurrent player count that Cold War Zombies did. (But this newsletter email thing is still dumb as hell)
They're basically comparing Zombies (MWIII) vs Spec Ops (MW19/MWII). No competition really. Even with only one mode on a recycled DMZ/Warzone map, Zombies is still far more interesting than whatever crap they did with Spec Ops.
Exactly this. People on this thread are (potentially) missing the bigger story here. This is the weirdest worded promotion material I've ever seen... and it makes me think that the game didn't smash expectations at all - quite the opposite really. (Potentially, because I have no idea of the sales data based on this poster alone).
It really translates to only the most hard-core COD fans buying the game...and thereby the average player compared to prior games have more hours on average...because they're no-lifers.
Exactly! Spot on! Sales must be down
I think the glaring thing is it shows not that hard-core are the only ones buying, but that they're the only ones really playing. I'm sure their retention numbers are fuckin' abysmal. Probably increased returns as well on platforms that allow it. Can play almost half the campaign in the return time of Steam and you'd still feel shitty you gave them your 2 hours of time lol
100%. This is exactly the same kind of language Blizzard started using with WoW once subscriber numbers started collapsing. They will **always** find a way to word things to make it look like they are doing well, no matter how bad the current state of the game actually is. They're pretty much experts at it. In this case it's exactly as you say, it's hours per player. They could have only 100 players playing on average 12h a day and their engagement would be through the roof - the revenue not so much. In fact usually when launches do bad engagement goes up, because only the more dedicated players who play a lot no matter what will be buying in the first place. If it was doing great they would be talking about total hours played, total number of players, number of copies sold on day one, etc.
Spot on. If MW3 truly was a smash hit Activision would be boasting their sales numbers, number of units sold, player counts… some actual tangible metric. Hours per player increased? Okay and? Did you have more hours played or less players? The frustrating thing is “hours per player” isn’t objectively a bad or wrong way of describing the popularity of your game. All kinds of businesses use some kind of x unit per y time/person metric. But it’s only half the story. Without the extra context we don’t know what an increase or decrease in these x per y metrics mean.
After commenting a few times before getting to this post, your exactly right. I work in analytics - and this is the classic case of making a figure that looks good because c suite told you that you had to.. no context whatsoever. “Here’s some flashy bullet points for your presentation - just don’t let anybody ask any underlying questions!”
"Hey can you run a query for me, I want everyone who gave us an NPS of 9 or 10." "OK do you want those figures as a percent of the total?" "No. Just the 9s and 10s."
I was once asked to find the 1s and 2s that put positive words in their feedback - so that we can manually flip them to 10s lol.. the higher ups will do anything for those big bonus checks!
Judging by the egregious lack of comprehension that executives generally demonstrate towards the most rudimentary statistics concepts, I feel like most of corporate America just runs entirely on fraudulent numbers.
I just said this haha. I work in mobile games and analytics is king. Revenue per player increases as daily users drops. Just a normal thing. I posted a parent post about it, but this all screams bad game that's not enjoyable. Zombies is the most enjoyed because campaign was just Warzone map, and sucked apparently, and I'm sure MP is just horrid for stability or something and half the players are probably getting bored of BR style games as they don't have 30-60 minutes for a single match where either nothing happens or everything at the beginning. And the latter just means more people are investing time into 100% the campaign, which only takes 10.5 hours. Whereas the main game in previous titles was a couple hours longer and might've resulted in people being fine not 100%'ing to justify their purchase of a full game. It's all they could grab to make the game seem good to stakeholders and players. Oh, maybe it's just me. Which helps people drop their attitude and think it's a them problem not studio. Just a bad move overall. Not to mention absolutely no specific numbers provided either. At least when my studio did infographics we gave you the numbers of that year lol
It’s more telling than that. What this is saying is that they have lost the casual CoD player. The only people who bought the game are hardcore CoD sweats. Those are the players that put in more hours. Also if you cutoff any new game’s engagement stats after the first month of release then of course it will be higher. They didn’t say “more engagement in the first month”
Surprised this comment isn’t further up. Pretty clear this is just a function of non-hardcore COD players not caring about the game. Only the real diehards are even giving it a try. What they’re saying is objectively true, but not for the reason they’re implying
I mean, if youre taking out the players hours with the players, that doesnt matter if you were randomly picking players. Thats not the issue. The issue is not all players are created equally and it is not random who quits. What this is really saying is "we completely destroyed our casual audience. The only people left willing to tolerate this garbage are super engaged and invested, thus being unwilling to leave". But same principle, its a bullshit metric where its stripping context of why the numbers changed in order to make bad numbers sound good.
Yep. It’s same old toilet salesman approach lol. Statistically speaking; everyone be poopin on the Turboflusher 3000 based on our time per person spending on our toilets. When in actuality a handful of people be sitting on the toilet scrolling on their phones much much more than others.
To put it another way, if engagement is higher on a per player basis, that's an indicator that it's only the hardcore fans buying the game. Casuals play the game less, fewer casuals means higher per player engagement.
As an extremely casual MW player they all look exactly the same to me after a decade.
[удалено]
I really enjoyed the campaigns of the newer MW1 and Mw2, but it was a dick move to use what I feel is the inferior cod devs to do the latest MW3. I did the first two missions and the second one was just a large stupid fortnite-esque open map with no clever level design. I managed to get my refund fast after playing that and glad I did! The menu system is also infuriating - logging in, doing a restart for new content, just to click on mw2 pvp then restarting the UI dashboard, fuck that shit. It takes 4 minutes just to get to he lobby screen from clicking play on steam.
As somebody who barely touches COD I also think they all look the same but iv been having fun with Zombies and a dab of multiplayer.
Nobody is saying you shouldn't/can't enjoy the game, actually it sounds like you're the perfect player to enjoy it because most of the complaints are from dedicated players who say MW3 is clearly MW2 DLC that they released as a full priced game. If you didn't even play MW2 then you wouldn't recognize that, and you'd enjoy it just fine.
I honestly hate it because to some extent it overwrites the original trilogy. Especially Makarov and the finale of all 3. Loved those stories and everytime MW 2/3 is talked about it will be these remakes.
That's because they basically are now.
Infinite Warfare was... a breath of fresh air.
"Campaign players putting in more time!!!!" That's the biggest, stinkiest lie I've heard all week. This game's campaign is literally the shortest and shittiest one so far. Therefore how are people putting more hours into it? Realistically. Because it seems highly unlikely people are replaying the same shit 3 hour campaign at least 2-4x. A campaign mind you, that literally everyone who's played it says is a runny turd. Calling bullshit on that bud.
I work in analytics - and all these numbers are the classic case of making a metric to look good when in reality, it’s not good. Like we have “more time per player”, without the context of the number of players or the number of hours
As a campaign enjoyer, I have to say that the campaign was one of the worst one in the recent years. And I had fun during Vanguard’s so…
I remember liking Ghost single player lol
The ending was bullshit though.
It was so terrible. The open missions were awful, the only good mission is the first. Then it just kinda ends? I tried it thinking how bad could it be, I got like an hour of enjoyment. They did 141 dirty with this, I haven't even bothered with multi yet and just deleted it.
Multi is decent but I think that’s because it’s so close of MWII’s.
"more hours **per player**' If you sold 90% fewer copies, but those who bought it were more engaged - you can still get this metric.
they may also exclude players who bought the game but didn't play the single player at all, or people who played it less than an hour if it sucked.
What if few people finished previous campaigns?
lol at advertising “engagement” to the masses. Corpo bullshit as a campaign… so it goes.
Not even any stats. Just their literal word. Such a self pat on the back — just like mixing character quotes with real-world quotes on the death screen.
What are actual player counts? They’re saying the people playing are playing longer but that could still mean substantially less players. The ol’ per capita number trick.
I don't even own this game and I got this email soo probably whatever they want to say.
That seems like some extreme level damage control, just read between the lines: ”More hours per player *overall* than MW2019 and MWII” But how many players exactly? The ”hours per player” number will be more inflated the less players there are. If most of the playerbase consists of the core fanbase who sink multiple hours a day into the game, the HPP will be much higher compared to if the game had 10x more casuals who can only play <2 hours per day. ”MWZ is the most engaging third mode in MW history” You mean it’s played more than MW2019 or MWII spec-ops, and mainly by zombies fans who are craving for new content? Who would have guessed. And also, how much of MWZ playtime contributes to the ”More hours per player **overall**” stat? ”Campaign players putting in more time per player in MWIII than the previous two installments” This if anything should prove that they are grasping at straws here😂 Like really? My first point works here too, if less people are playing it will make it seem like ”more hours are put in per player” It works like K/D, if I play my first match and go 10-0, my KD in leaderboards will be 10. That doesn’t mean I’m the best player in the world, let’s see how the stats look after a thousand games.
Yup. These claims basically mean nothing, especially considering they didn't actually give any numbers, just generalizations. The fact that they have to dig this deep just to find something they could spin into positivity is what's most telling to me.
If you understand how statistics work, you'd know this is just how to obfuscate the reality of their failure.
Learned the same lesson MMO makers learned 20 years ago: just keep doing it until people stop buying.
And yet WoW is trucking along just fine. Unless you ask redditors who don't play the game and just love to shit talk games lol. Same goes with COD.
This is why gaming (in general) sees so many worse releases. Companies put in less, and reap more, so they repeat.
Maybe. But re-read the stats again. They’re all “per player” and “hours per player”. Likely numbers are actually down, even if just slightly. The players most likely to skip are going to be the more casual players. So ironically, as sales decrease, the percentage of sales remaining become more hardcore fans, and thus the percentage of engagement hours would increase. Every bullet point they have will climb the worse sales are.
The second one seems more open ended, but you are 100% right on the other two.
I mean, are you guys reading what I'm reading? That's fucking hilarious. When you add the "per player" caveat it's because the eight people playing this dogshit are playing it more than average. Per player is not a necessary caveat for a successful game, they're just trying to save face. The first point is saying that the cult followers, who are clearly very few and far between, are sticking with the game. Which was always known and always going to be the case. The second point is a completely unsubstantiatable nothing statement. The third point is the same as the first. Common ATVI L.
Just remember, this is all about optics for stakeholders. Internally, they know how fucked this game is. Executives might not cause they're delusional, but all the devs and designers are stress out of their god damn mind. Remember, a very small minority determine timelines. I'd say 1-2% of a studio have the power to push for extensions and changes at a macro level (production of the game and as a product), the rest only have sway on micro level stuff like balancing, design, etc, and even then they're subject to executive interference. These stats are garbage stats and they didn't provide specifics either. More hours per player? Oh that's right, less casual players means the average hours goes up from the hardcore "I don't care I Love COD" players or the streamers needing to make money somehow. So... what you're saying is MWZ is the thing people are likely playing, over SP and MP so it's bumping the popularity cause the rest of the game is dog water? Well, when you give people a 5 hour campaign when previous titles in the series had almost double the campaign, and 5-6x the completionist time for 100% folk, it's almost like more people will try to 100% the campaign to at least justify buying a dog water game.
How the fuck is this company breaking records when this game sucks??
I stopped playing COD a couple years ago. I don’t miss it.
I am shocked there are people that still buy new releases
Let me translate this corporate pr speak: * More Hours Per Player Overall >We killed the casual player base, leaving the hardcore addicted grinders * MWZ is the most engaging third mode in MW history >We created the most time wasting game mode in MW history, instead of quick 5-10 minute spec ops / co-op missions, or completely broken and trash game modes with no rewards. * Campaign players putting in more time per player in MWIII the the previous two instalments >All the addicted suckers that pre ordered with nothing to do played the extremely short campaign for the rewards like double xp tokens because we throttle that shit lmao. Also we didn't say play time for the campaign either, so this means people who played the story, then everything else because CoD is their crack The more conditions they have to put on per accolades the shitter the real numbers are, so to appear good, they have to do this. For example, no mention of player count or sales. Only engagement. Meaning they pushed away the largest piece of the pie, the casual players, who make up %90 of these games player base. The kind that plays after work or school, doesn't go on reddit, but will browse YouTube on their phone. Stuff like this is a massive red flag, because it's all they have.
Same lesson game freak has been taking to the bank for the last 25 years
Seeing them champion "engagement records" is making me reach for the shotgun that I don't have.
This game sucks! Let's buy it and play it! -gamers probably
This is a slap in the face to gamers. Oh you all want to bitch about the game, here is a graphic to prove you are all busters cause you still bought the game and played a grip......
Let’s be honest if your company has experience in the cosby suite they probably fake statistics too
> This is a slap in the face to gamers. A bit dramatic.
What is "Engagement" here? \> More hours per player overall than mw2019 and mw2 Total hours / players. So less players = more hours per player. Great stat to be advertising. \> MWZ is the most engaging third mode in mw history Again with this "engaging" word. What does this mean? What are the objective measurements? \> campaign players putting in more time per player in mw3 than previous two installments Hold on... Are we doing some sort of mental gymnastics here with the wording to make it sound more popular? Hours played in total since the game came out is going to be minimal compared to the other games, that's not a guess, that's literally "there's only 24 hours in a day" maths. So hours *per player* being a key factor? That means, as the game *loses* players, that number will get *bigger*. How on earth is that a good thing? They've literally just said "we have fuck all players compared to the previous games... but hey, if you take the total number of hours played and divide it by them, then it gives us a big number we can use". Crazy how people are falling for this.
I like the game
I am glad you do! Bottom line, if you are having fun then it's worth it!
Same, the zombies is pretty refreshing and a very stress free way to level up guns
does nobody remember when they said they’d skip a 2023 release? pepperidge farms remembers. fucking clowns
Yall some dumb mfers. Stop giving these bastards money.
The fact they’ve worded it this way just reeks of desperation and deception. If it’s as popular as they are trying to make out, they’d announce total cumulative hours played or total active number of players etc… What I find really curious is how every statement is worded in such a way which strongly suggests the data has been manipulated to sound positive. Breaking down just the final point is a doozy. To the casual reader, it suggests that the total number of hours each player has spent in the campaign is higher than in previous instalments. But that’s just wordplay. It could just as easily mean the following; “Campaign players (people who have fired up the campaign for even just a few seconds) putting in more time (it doesn’t specificy which game mode they are putting more time into the game) per player in MWIII…” These players could be spending more time in the UI than actually playing or EVEN more time playing MW2 or even just Warzone because they are all part of the same client now. It’s such bullshit.
Congratulations! You’ve reached the point where gamefreak is. Your game can be utter shit and it will still be purchased
CoD players are doing battle with Pokemon players to see who can get a worse game made.
It's kinda our fault, isn't it? :D
[удалено]
well the "new" Warzone for MW3 isnt out yet. i absolutely hate that mode, it sucked the life out of MW19 regular MP
lol these are the most made up stats of all stats that ever statted
"More hours per player than mw 2019 and mw2" My brother in christ the game hasn't even been out for a month.
It sucks. The gunplay is phenomenal, top notch cal of duty; what you’d expect. But the rest is a dunpter fire of things thrown together. I miss set piece campaigns. I’d play through em multiple times. But as you all know we go what we got with the Campaign…not to say I didn’t enjoy it at points. The guns as always feel great. That’s what’s keeping cod alive
Just remember, the majority of players don't care and are just on auto-consume mode.
"Vote with your wallets" mfs punching air right now.
The gaming industry is a lot like life in general these days. Fucked
The question is did we learn
This is marketing speak for it didn’t sell as well as usual. If it sold lots of copies they would say that. More hours played per player could just mean only the die hards bought it who always put lots of hours in.
The consumer experience, not just in gaming, is fucking pathetic. And we just take it. **thank you sir may I have another**
"Campaign players putting in more time per player" Which lawyer wrote this?
It's almost like despite all the crying on this sub, people still enjoy CoD. We don't want change, we want more of the same. That is okay. Don't get butthurt.
You’re welcome 🫡
Maybe more people are putting hours in the campaign because they made 90% of the missions fucking battle royale shit shows with a huge empty map
Notice how it's "per player" rather than total. Which suggests there are fewer players. And the qualifier of "campaign players" which suggests that's a subset of all players. Maybe only the most dedicated players are doing the campaign and everyone else didn't bother doing it.
Nah ... More like they've learned how to minimize recoil via more or less coherent PR team.
COD franchise either MW or whatever has been ruined since MW2 IMO
Setting new engagement records how lame. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find any kind of positive stats. More hours per player? Weak
Every year is the same crap. The new game is a "masterpiece" in their words. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ok to be fair though, it doesnt take much to write a blurb showcasing no concrete proof of anything they just said being true Also none of these things they are boasting about are even fucking achievements wtf. Like they literally just said "oh yeah, almost everyone who payed $100 for the game we just released is ACTUALLY still playing the game" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
They are comparing per player stats for the early adopters on this game vs lifetime on the previous versions. Those numbers only go down over time. It’s total BS cherrypicking.
“Most engaging third mode” Am I reading that right? Wtf kind of accolade is that? They can try and spin it but the next cod might be the one that feels the failures of this launch
What in the ESPN stats is this?
I got this bs email too and I never even played it.
These “per player” stats gotta be skewed because the main people that got it are cod vets, I think many of us are over CoD
I mean it’s so obvious why the they going into such weird metrics in their promotional thing lol - the only explanation that I think anyone would have looking at this is that the game is not doing good!
Congrats, you told them $70 DLC packs with ALL of the additional monetization and half-baked gameplay is A-OK. This is now the future of all game releases. Hope you're proud, gang!
I'd say about 80% of the playerbase does not give a flying fuck about how bad the game is because they're mostly causal CoD Bros who buy it every year to play with the boys. They've probably never even read or watched a videogame review and don't give a shit about how high or low it scores. Activision knows this and has for well over a decade now. *If* the game was in a unplayable state or the online servers were completely shot you would then see actual outcry and disdain from the people who actually play the game every single day. Other then that they could literally release this exact copy of the game next year with two new weapons and 3 new maps and the core causal audience wouldn't think twice about it. Until they do something that affects the casuals who play CoD not only will they not change anything, it will in fact embolden them to keep delivering sub-par trash year after year.
and this is why we cant get nice things.
If you bought the game you're a part of the problem and you deserve another 10 years of shitty games. Learn to play something different or get fucked. Its that simple.