-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rumor: Black Ops Declassified had a 5 months dev cycle
- Thread starter Spiegel
- Start date
Noisepurge
Member
it's like activision and sony want it to fail! 
it's like activision and sony want it to fail!
Just Activision probably.
denshuu
Member
I'm really wondering when this is going to happen with mainline Call of Duty games. I don't have any hard numbers, but Activision has to be able to tell the number of people who actually play the single player campaign to completion and the number of people who play online exclusively. The latter has got to outnumber the former by a huge margin.
Edit: Unscientific as hell, but according to the achievement tracking numbers at TrueAchievements and Giantbomb, more people have reached Rank 10 in multiplayer than have completed the first campaign mission.
It won't ever happen to the main games in the Call of Duty franchise because they have an unlimited budget to make their games. They'll just add more and more modes and content to the game, and for that we should pity the rest of the developers of $60 games.
Ingueferroque
Banned
Wow, I'm speechless.
I partially blame Sony for this, they should have made sure (at any cost to them) that this was either going to be a Black Ops 2 port or a good showcase of the Vita.
After messing up Monster Hunter Vita, they have messed up Call of Duty Vita as well.. such a shame for a promising piece of hardware.
NinjaBoiX
Member
NinjaBoiX
Member
Until KZ Vita hits.
That's my most anticipated game since the NGP was unveiled.
Hero of Legend
Member
I was like "no way, that's like a dangerous situation, it can't be THAT bad".
*checks metacritic*
OH MY GOD!!! *psycho theme plays*
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-vita/call-of-duty-black-ops-declassified/critic-reviews
Visualante2
Member
Bobby Kotick said when he took over at Activision he brought in talent from the fast food industry. Now you know what they're capable off.
it's like activision and sony want it to fail!
Activision didn't have anything to do with it. As far as I can tell, the deal was basically "yes we will give you a Call of Duty on Vita, so long as you develop, market and do absolutely everything regarding the game yourselves". I assume Activision will take a percentage of every copy of the game sold for absolutely no effort or input themselves.
It's genius, really.
They probably aren't even concerned about the "brand damage" that some on here are speculating about. I wonder how many of the millions of people who went and paid their money for Black Ops 2 this week even know Declassified exists, never mind care about how it effects their experience with the PS3/360/PC game?
it's like activision and sony want it to fail!
I take it that they feel the call of duty name will sell any product regardless of quality. They know it can be shit and still sell enough to always make a profit. Hasn't every call of duty game always made a profit since cod4?
I wonder what the overheads are on a 5 month dev cycle?
http://www.metacritic.com/game/ds/call-of-duty-black-ops
Is it actually markedly *worse* than the n-Space DS titles, or were the expectations just so much higher? The DS titles seem *reasonably* well-recieved, considering - and I'd be surprised if they were given more dev time to work with than the Vita one.
I'd be very curious to hear what their timescale was for those. And, for that matter, if they actually pitched for Blops Vita.
chickdigger802
Banned
Do shit games really affect sales though?
I mean games that got panned critically like RE6, will RE7 sell well?
Will next year's CoD (if there is one) on vita sell worst than this year?
I mean games that got panned critically like RE6, will RE7 sell well?
Will next year's CoD (if there is one) on vita sell worst than this year?
I don't know. But what is an issue is that I don't think the way some people track the time spent on a game is accurate.
For example the GameSpot guy took over 20 minutes to finish a mission, but the mission is only approx. 4 minutes long if you don't die. Now if you looked at the progression at the end it would only count the time where you didn't die, thereby giving you a different time in the game than you actual spent on it.
In-game timers are often deceptive. I think the only thing that should count is how long did it take from starting the game until ending the game in real world time and then be clear what you mean by completing the game.
For me that is playing a singleplayer game through on Normal difficulty. For others it's playing it through Normal, then again on Hard and then collecting all trophies.
Canis lupus
Member
Doesn't surprise me.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
RE6 sold far worse than RE5.
FFXIII's poor reception probably lead to bad sales for XIII-2
For those saying that Sony is involved somehow, they aren't.
This is like saying that Borderlands 2 on the 360 is broken so it's Microsoft's fault (for example)
Sony and everyone else announce 3rd party titles at E3 etc when 3rd parties tell them to announce them. It's not the console manufacturer screwing the game up, it's teh developer and publisher.
Sheesh
This is like saying that Borderlands 2 on the 360 is broken so it's Microsoft's fault (for example)
Sony and everyone else announce 3rd party titles at E3 etc when 3rd parties tell them to announce them. It's not the console manufacturer screwing the game up, it's teh developer and publisher.
Sheesh
DragonSworne
Banned
They advertise this game has multiplayer only in the US..
AgentOtaku
Member
Similar threads
- Poll