You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.
Battlefield owns Call of Duty
Posted:
Battlefield owns Call of DutyPosted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 14, 201113Year Member
Posts: 1,566
Reputation Power: 70
It's no surprise that Cods sales and active players drastically outnumber the Dice created, battlefield franchise.
HOWEVER, if you've noticed (which you have) the trailers for both games are polar opposites. The infinite warfare trailer is being received very negatively and is expected to severely impact the games sales.
The battlefield 1 trailer however is getting praise. Far more than any other battlefield games in the past. It has also taken an aspect it's lacked over the years that call of duty always had. The very fast paced, in your face gameplay.
This is because it is trying to take over CODs spot on the FPS podium. And it's doing this because battlefield owns call of duty. IW is being forced by Dice to put out another crap Halo-esque game when that is clearly not what the fans want.
What do the fans want? games with no jet packs, Lazer guns, or flying robots. What is Dice making? Just that. Add in the boots on the ground and that good old cod inspired fast pace gameplay and you get battlefield 1.
I could provide more proof, but you get the idea.
To conclude. Battlefield owns cod. They force IW to make a crap game to boost their BF sales by drawing a fanbase to their game. Making BF1 the FPS king.
Or Dice is just smarter and taking advantage of the situation. But you know, whatever.
HOWEVER, if you've noticed (which you have) the trailers for both games are polar opposites. The infinite warfare trailer is being received very negatively and is expected to severely impact the games sales.
The battlefield 1 trailer however is getting praise. Far more than any other battlefield games in the past. It has also taken an aspect it's lacked over the years that call of duty always had. The very fast paced, in your face gameplay.
This is because it is trying to take over CODs spot on the FPS podium. And it's doing this because battlefield owns call of duty. IW is being forced by Dice to put out another crap Halo-esque game when that is clearly not what the fans want.
What do the fans want? games with no jet packs, Lazer guns, or flying robots. What is Dice making? Just that. Add in the boots on the ground and that good old cod inspired fast pace gameplay and you get battlefield 1.
I could provide more proof, but you get the idea.
To conclude. Battlefield owns cod. They force IW to make a crap game to boost their BF sales by drawing a fanbase to their game. Making BF1 the FPS king.
Or Dice is just smarter and taking advantage of the situation. But you know, whatever.
#2. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 04, 201014Year Member
Posts: 6,598
Reputation Power: 276
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 04, 201014Year Member
Posts: 6,598
Reputation Power: 276
Your final line hits the nail on the head. Dice are just smarter than Infinity Ward/Treyarch/Activision.
No company would create and inject millions, billions even, into it to purposely make a poor game so their other company, the rival, would thrive.
Call of Duty designers listen partially to what fans want, but their opinions are outweighed by the desires and ambition of the designers themselves. These new games aren't what fans wanted, it's what they wanted.
Battlfield on the other hand, they have learnt from past mistakes. Kept things in present day-near future to keep the realism. Some bits worked, others didn't. As a result, and the demand for a game set in the past, they have created Battlefield 1, set in World War 1. Listening to the fans but chosing a difficult challenge with World War 1, having to do the research on weapons, locations and ensuring things are as they were back then. They have guidlines to follow, otherwise the game would share no historic value. Meaning it's more difficult to master.
In simple words, it's bank account balance vs. effort.
No company would create and inject millions, billions even, into it to purposely make a poor game so their other company, the rival, would thrive.
Call of Duty designers listen partially to what fans want, but their opinions are outweighed by the desires and ambition of the designers themselves. These new games aren't what fans wanted, it's what they wanted.
Battlfield on the other hand, they have learnt from past mistakes. Kept things in present day-near future to keep the realism. Some bits worked, others didn't. As a result, and the demand for a game set in the past, they have created Battlefield 1, set in World War 1. Listening to the fans but chosing a difficult challenge with World War 1, having to do the research on weapons, locations and ensuring things are as they were back then. They have guidlines to follow, otherwise the game would share no historic value. Meaning it's more difficult to master.
In simple words, it's bank account balance vs. effort.
- 1useful
- 0not useful
#3. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 08, 201311Year Member
Posts: 1,728
Reputation Power: 137
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 08, 201311Year Member
Posts: 1,728
Reputation Power: 137
If battlefield owned COD, they would just let COD make an insane game and Battlefield would also make an insane game too. Therefore, consumers would purchase both games, thus maximizing profits.
There would be no point in making one bad game and one good game because if you owned both companies then you'd want both games to be bought somewhat equally.
I think that Infinity Warfare will be decent, irrelavent of wether people like it or not, they will still buy it which is all IW care about. Sales.
There would be no point in making one bad game and one good game because if you owned both companies then you'd want both games to be bought somewhat equally.
I think that Infinity Warfare will be decent, irrelavent of wether people like it or not, they will still buy it which is all IW care about. Sales.
- 3useful
- 0not useful
#4. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 30, 201014Year Member
Posts: 19
Reputation Power: 0
To be honest Call Of Duty is terrible ever since it went all Star Wars ripoff like it's just become a joke. As for battlefield it's just one the same as any rest.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#5. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 13, 201410Year Member
Posts: 5,592
Reputation Power: 61
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 13, 201410Year Member
Posts: 5,592
Reputation Power: 61
They don't own CoD they're trying to take over the CoD fanbase
- 1useful
- 0not useful
#6. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 04, 201212Year Member
Posts: 1,290
Reputation Power: 51
How is this conspiracy? All the audience wanted was world war 2 or 1 game and DICE listened and created Battleifled 1.
- 1useful
- 0not useful
#7. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 22, 20159Year Member
Posts: 4,350
Reputation Power: 5205
It's just that Dice are smarter than the COD franchises.
- 1useful
- 0not useful
#8. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 05, 20168Year Member
Posts: 197
Reputation Power: 11
Motivational wrote If battlefield owned COD, they would just let COD make an insane game and Battlefield would also make an insane game too. Therefore, consumers would purchase both games, thus maximizing profits.
There would be no point in making one bad game and one good game because if you owned both companies then you'd want both games to be bought somewhat equally.
I think that Infinity Warfare will be decent, irrelavent of wether people like it or not, they will still buy it which is all IW care about. Sales.
People will always buy cod, like i have quit the game cause its shit but i will probs end up still buying it.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#9. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 18, 201211Year Member
Posts: 712
Reputation Power: 63
It's a good thought but as a few others already stated.
They wouldn't waste millions of dollars into a a game title for it to be shitty.
Wouldn't they make both titles(CoD and Battlefield) appeal to the two groups. This would be to maximize sales.
Dice just knows how to make a better game and is trying to take the Call of Duty Community.
Older fans appeal more to the newer game (BF1) because its not in anyway futuristic.
They wouldn't waste millions of dollars into a a game title for it to be shitty.
Wouldn't they make both titles(CoD and Battlefield) appeal to the two groups. This would be to maximize sales.
Dice just knows how to make a better game and is trying to take the Call of Duty Community.
Older fans appeal more to the newer game (BF1) because its not in anyway futuristic.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#10. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 09, 201311Year Member
Posts: 342
Reputation Power: 22
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 09, 201311Year Member
Posts: 342
Reputation Power: 22
id believe it considering battlefield is more war like realistic and thats what the governmemnt wants is a bunch a people that when a draft comes have basic military knowlege unlike cod which is less realistic
- 0useful
- 0not useful
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.