Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII - now with battle royale instead of a single player campaign

[Azalin]

It wouldn't surprise me if Destiny 2 was Activision's test to see if PC users would be okay with not using Steam. I can see why the big publishers want to get away from Valve though. Why tithe 20% to the cult of GabeN and hand over all that customer data if you don't have to?

It was obviously a test to see how good the sales would be without steam and it seems it was successful.It's an and of an era,from now on the big 3 publishers will have their own clients(Origin,Uplay and now Battle.net) and only the rest will be using steam

P.S. Yeah I know Ubisoft hasn't completely pulled out of steam since it is using a hybrid model with uplay connected to steam but you know what I mean

 

[Outlander]

It wouldn't surprise me if Destiny 2 was Activision's test to see if PC users would be okay with not using Steam. I can see why the big publishers want to get away from Valve though. Why tithe 20% to the cult of GabeN and hand over all that customer data if you don't have to?

It was obviously a test to see how good the sales would be without steam and it seems it was successful.

I don't know about that, 8 months after release and it was bundled in Humble Bundle. The base game is incomplete and people probably aren't buying the DLCs.

 

[Irata]

https://venturebeat.com/2018/02/08/destiny-2-is-activisions-biggest-pc-launch-ever/
I'd say it did okay. I'm sure Activision would have liked people to continue to play, but Destiny 2 told Activision that people were willing to leave Steam.

 

[Wunderbar]

It looks like BO-III expansion pack.

 

[LESS T_T]

It wouldn't surprise me if Destiny 2 was Activision's test to see if PC users would be okay with not using Steam. I can see why the big publishers want to get away from Valve though. Why tithe 20% to the cult of GabeN and hand over all that customer data if you don't have to?

It was obviously a test to see how good the sales would be without steam and it seems it was successful.It's an and of an era,from now on the big 3 publishers will have their own clients(Origin,Uplay and now Battle.net) and only the rest will be using steam

P.S. Yeah I know Ubisoft hasn't completely pulled out of steam since it is using a hybrid model with uplay connected to steam but you know what I mean

I guess Bethesda is the next. Starfield (or whatever will be revealed in next month) is unlikely but I wouldn't be surprised if Elder Scrolls 6 will be a Bethesda.net exclusive.

 

[Makabb]

 

[Curratum]

I never finished a COD campaign after the Black Ops 1 one and that one was only barely ok.

When it's COD, I really, really don't care if they have a SP campaign or not.

The move with putting it on Battle.net only is hilarious, though. PC sales will drop noticeably.

 

[Makabb]

The original Battlefield 1942 back in 2000 had no SP either, it's weird they are adding SP anyway to games that always were MP shooters.

 

[LESS T_T]

I think moving to Battle.net shows that they really want that PC money this time. It's less crowded, their own platform that can be suited to their own needs. And it is the Battle.net, that with tens of thousands (edit: I mean, millions) of users and robust foundation already, not any other meager client.

Hilarious thing was how they've been neglected PC while let CS:GO and others get all the PC money. I guess PUBG made them finally realized that. (Oh yeah the battle royale mode.)

 

[DJOGamer PT]

The original Battlefield 1942 back in 2000 had no SP either, it's weird they are adding SP anyway to games that always were MP shooters.

CoD always had a single-player campaign.

 

[Makabb]

I think moving to Battle.net shows that they really want that PC money this time. It's less crowded, their own platform that can be suited to their own needs. And it is the Battle.net, that with tens of thousands of users and robust foundation already, not any other meager client.

Hilarious thing was how they've been neglected PC while let CS:GO and others get all the PC money. I guess PUBG made them finally realized that. (Oh yeah the battle royale mode.)

origin,uplay, battle.net, steam, all bs, just hinders PC gaming.

On consoles there is none of that, you just plop in disc and play, why can't it be same on PC? becaue muh piracy bs ?

All those 3rd party DRM that you need just hinders sales, haven't bought previous Battlefields because you need origin, if this trend follows people won't be buying those games.

 

[Ash]

What are you on about? On console you have to sign up to and pay for assrape live or piss network and willingly get shafted.

 

[Gerrard]

I can only imagine how badly this will run on that "biggest map we've ever done" if it's still the same engine.

 

[Hobo Elf]

I never finished a COD campaign after the Black Ops 1 one and that one was only barely ok.

When it's COD, I really, really don't care if they have a SP campaign or not.

The move with putting it on Battle.net only is hilarious, though. PC sales will drop noticeably.

Why would sales drop? CoD fans are fanatic and will go anywhere where the games are. Battle.net isn't a clunky turd like Uplay or Origin either so it's not much of a detriment to use. Even if sales would drop they don't have to pay Valve their 30%~ cut so whatever sales they do get will be pure profit for them.
It's time to face the music. The era of Steam is slowly coming to an end. The lack of quality control, an issue that Valve still refuses to acknowledge, was a deathblow for the platform.

 

[Infinitron]

Those things aren't directly related as it's not high profile releases like a Call of Duty game that are hurt by Valve's lack of quality control.

EA did this years ago so the real question is what took Activision so long.

 

[orcinator]

Looks like this one has health-bars and not automatic regeneration. Is this incline?

World War 2™ didn't have regen in the campaign and that was still shit so I don't see the MP in iiii being anything but shit unless they fix the problems they've been refusing to fix since forever.

 

[Egosphere]

Looks like this one has health-bars and not automatic regeneration. Is this incline?

They've gone full circle and arrived back at Cod 1's system

 

[unfairlight]

It's going to be released on Battle.net and not on Steam. End of an era in more than one way.

Wasn't that rumor complete bullshit?

I don't really give a shit about losing the campaign to be quite honest. COD campaigns have been pretty poor after MW2 so I'm not gonna shed that many tears. Treyarch is basically the only decent studio making CoD since Infinity Ward lost all its talent and Sledgehammer fucked up Advanced Warfare and WW2 quite properly. If Treyarch treats PC as well as they did with Black Ops 3, adding things like mod support and whatnot I think this has some good potential.

 

[Azalin]

It's going to be released on Battle.net and not on Steam. End of an era in more than one way.

Wasn't that rumor complete bullshit?

 

[unfairlight]

Okay, I guess not. When I first heard it it was unconfirmed and people thought it was BS. This probably also rules out mod support because I don't think battle.net has any and it relied on Steam Workshop in BO3.

 

[Belegarsson]

Apparently people found assets in the multiplayer build that has the year 2069 on them, which is 3 years after the events of Black Ops 3. Meanwhile, the devs said this game takes place between BO2 (2025) and BO3. So I guess the leak about campaign getting scrapped mid development was right. The shitstorm that hit Infinite Warfare scared off Activision so they told SHG to dump Advanced Warfare 2 and make WW2 (which was a rushed piece of shit) instead. Same thing probably happened to BO4, campaign got too futuristic (IIRC it would have involved time travelling and shit) and they just couldn't tweak for fix it enough for the approriate aesthetic, or narrative, or gameplay, or set piece or anything related, so they simply removed it.

Spoiler

There's also this one from the cinematic trailer. Corvus was the AI generated by DNI that played the antagonist role in BO3 which is impossible to exist before that game's timeline.

Spoiler

Those things aren't directly related as it's not high profile releases like a Call of Duty game that are hurt by Valve's lack of quality control.

EA did this years ago so the real question is what took Activision so long.

To be fair they have a less prolific catalogue than EA in recent years, they live off COD, Destiny, Skylanders, Candy Crush and MLG esport, not enough PC products to justify completely moving off Steam.

They gave a shit about Destiny 2 on PC and it became their biggest PC launch ever, they didn't have beef with Steam and Valve like EA but this showed that they can capture a huge audience on PC, and (bear with me for a sec since this probably sound retarded) I think with the inclusion of Battle Royale - the most popular genre on PC at the moment - Activision wants this game to have a healthy lifespan even with the yearly release schedule so they can milk it as much as possible through microtransaction.

I don't think they want their entire catalogue to be exclusive on Bnet - Crash Bandicoot, and probably Spyro remake, are on Steam for example. But their main money makers will. Call of Duty is my guilty pleasure and if this decision leads to a good PC port, then so be it.

 

[Irata]

Okay, I guess not. When I first heard it it was unconfirmed and people thought it was BS. This probably also rules out mod support because I don't think battle.net has any and it relied on Steam Workshop in BO3.

I believe Starcraft 2 has something similar to the Steam Workshop . I don't know if that means anything for this game though.