Black Ops - Record sales, but why?

marketing has really nothing to do with it, im guessing they could put a picture of a turd on a tv that says COD black ops BUY NOW! and it would still sell a million copies.

Well they weren't dramatic at all... the game was extremely familiar even after 12 years. Also stop acting like waiting 12 years for a sequel is a good thing... It isn't.

Plus it's a whole year... seems small in the grand scheme of things but playing a game for more than a year is a big ask. It does happen but its rare.

the_mitch28

Are you kidding me that SC2's graphics and physics aren't that dramatically different from SC1? Who could possibly think that? It went from 800x600 resolution 2 dimensional sprites with no physics whatsoever to high definition, modern 3D graphics and havok physics. I literally can't think of a bigger jump in technology between sequels in the history of video games.

I didn't act like waiting for 12 years for a sequel is a good thing. You implied that SC2 was no different from Black Ops because it's essentially a rehash and I explained that it was 1 dramatically improved rehash in 12 years whereas CoD games come out constantly at full price.

Also, playing a game for more than a year is somehow a problem? This is basically an ADD consumerist mentality that I'm sure marketers just love.

most ppl is just plain stupid with low IQs, so such a simple arcadish shooter is fun for them and satisfying compared with other shooters that could require more thinking or strategybl1ndz0r

I happen to think Black Ops is more fun than Bad Company 2. Guess I have a low IQ, huh? :( ... and here's me thinking I was smart for playing the Arma series. :cry:

Reading this thread, all I could think of was:

Okay, but is it so substantially more fun and different from the one that was just released to justify a $60 purchase?

this thread proves only one thing : pC elitism is one big reason why we will always find "The pc is dying" threads. Elitists and their hypocrisy and some comparing one overrated rts against an overrated shooter. WOW, just wow
"

Uhhh I just have to laugh at your post. Starcraft 2 doesn't require that great of a computer to run it on the lowest its not a graphically demanding game. The reason Modern warfail 2 does better and every other call of duty game is because of the name. People buy it because its so popular for some reason. They will keep releasing a new cod every year until people stop buying it which is probably never. I would save the 60$ and get sc2 over black ops anyday. I mean a 5 hour campaign + 15-20 hours on multiplayer or a 10-15 hour campaign + 1,000 plus hours of multiplayer. I know what I would pick :)gunmaster55555

I completely agree that SC2 is a better choice, I wasn't saying that at all. I was simply taking their comparison. Also, graphics != computing power. It's physics is what really kills it, but then again I haven't played since about a week after release. I didn't personally enjoy the game, but I can see the appeal regardless. I'll probably play again when there is more use map stoof.

I think your numbers for MP for CoD are a little off though, 15 - 20 hours isn't what I'm seeing on Steam. Try 500+.

this thread proves only one thing : pC elitism is one big reason why we will always find "The pc is dying" threads. Elitists and their hypocrisy and some comparing one overrated rts against an overrated shooter. WOW, just wow
"

omenodebander

[QUOTE="omenodebander"]

this thread proves only one thing : pC elitism is one big reason why we will always find "The pc is dying" threads. Elitists and their hypocrisy and some comparing one overrated rts against an overrated shooter. WOW, just wow
"

Advid-Gamer

What's with the IQ thing, I know it may not be the most skill based shooter out there, but you have to have a brain to play and even win.:|

Too many reasons. 1) Gaming websites like this one reviewers are bribed taken to a hotel recieving great treatment from the publisher of the game they are reviewing. So the game always gets over the top scores wich they dont deserve. bl1ndz0r

lol, libel? :P

My opinion is simple, most ppl is just plain stupid with low IQs, so such a simple arcadish shooter is fun for them and satisfyingbl1ndz0r

the sp has, undoubtedly in my mind, been designed for kids. your way of saying it is much more insulting though. i like it

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="omenodebander"]

this thread proves only one thing : pC elitism is one big reason why we will always find "The pc is dying" threads. Elitists and their hypocrisy and some comparing one overrated rts against an overrated shooter. WOW, just wow
"

SF_KiLLaMaN

Man I'm having a blast with BO. I think I may be the only PC gamer who plays it with an Xbox360 controller LOL. I played a ton of CoD4 on my 360 and the controller feels so much more natural for me than the alternative. Honestly in the right hands controller works just as well as mouse/keyboard in shooters.

Man I'm having a blast with BO. I think I may be the only PC gamer who plays it with an Xbox360 controller LOL. I played a ton of CoD4 on my 360 and the controller feels so much more natural for me than the alternative. Honestly in the right hands controller works just as well as mouse/keyboard in shooters.

Cruxis27

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"] I agree, thats why I dont post in the pc forums much and the pc is my preferred platform. Look at the users scores for Black ops on the pc, tons of people gave it 4 and 5, most of them seem to live in a bubble putting 10yrd games on a pedestal thinking everything is garbage in comparsion, I dont get it.

Advid-Gamer

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] I would rate it a 7.5 at best. Now don't get me wrong, I bet Black Ops is a ton of fun. but for me, the upgrades are not $60 worthy. I do not think it is enough of an upgrade to warrant a new game.

SF_KiLLaMaN

Well the first bad company has the exact same weapons minus 1 that is being replaced by another.Not much of new feature in comaparison with cod-mw2 jump.

Now on stalker, well its 40 bucks for many reasons, one being that they dont work with a big budget title so they dont ask much. Another being that its from a pc developer that is not AAA. But to be honest clear sky was a crappy version of soc with few additions that executed poorly and some of the maps were the same. If anything it was a reskin and recycled. Now call of pripiyat was very good with plenty of changes and improvements. But it was still a stalker game with the same skins and same weapons with few additions being the monsters that were already in soc and could be enabled via mods. Oh and one auto shotgun. While i admit they did an excelent job to balance the game and polish its mechanics, still it did not stray far from the previous stalker games. It was still remarkably similar so i dont really understand why you complain so much about cod.

Atleast they change the setting and weapon skins and add a few along with some new stuff like killstreaks and perks. I honestly dont get how its just a reskin but stalker gamers are not. Now on dead space 2 and killzone 3, lets just say they look alot like the previous installments.

Oh, should i point out assasin creed brotherhood? my point is games are like that nowadays and more and more developers charge 60 bucks on pc despite how expansion/full fledged sequel the games are. Ea did that with moh and dead space 2 will also be 60 bucks, ubisoft is doing it for a while now...so how cod is that much diffirent, i just dont get it!!

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"] Thats your opinion, maybe they should take the COD games off of the PC since none of you seem to like them. For me it is the best COD that I have played. I dont see how it could be a 7.5.

MyopicCanadian

They didn't build crap from the ground up. They used the exact same engine and a lot of the code from MW2. All they had to do was edit it. MW2 was a buggy, unbalanced mess and Black Ops just fixed all of that, that is why it feels different. SF_KiLLaMaN

The engine is nominally the same, but Treyarch and Infinity diverted after CoD4, hence the better textures, and graphics overall in Black Ops and W@W (on PC - on consoles, they're pretty damn similar), and the different feeling guns.

I was reading on Reuters that this game has set a new record for the game industry, but I really can't fathom why. We waited over a decade for the release of Starcraft 2, whereas a CoD game was released just last year, along with a slew of modern military shooters this year.

It's really amazing how a company can churn out essentially the same game year after year and people will continue to buy it. It's a testament to the effectiveness of marketing vs. actual quality development.

superfluidity

This is why:

Animatronic64

If I genuinely LOVED a game and the devs said "we will release a new version every year with improvements" then I would buy it every time, providing it is VERY fun! £40 for 1 years worth of entertainment is a Bargain! I don't care what other devs do.

Daytona_178

QFT

I hate all this "OMG $60 every year for the same game!!! Not buying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I spend $90 to fill my car up with gas for a week... $60 for a video game that I will be playing for an entire year, and enjoying is quite a deal...

Looking at past CoDs, even ones I didn't enjoy as much as the others (WaW), I have like 30 days of playing time on them... So in 3 years, 30 days of playing time (720 hours), for $180... Compared to other games, hmmm... Just this year, Halo: Reach, New Vegas, Mafia 2, Just Cause 2, Fable 3, Assassins Creed Brotherhood, Mass Effect 2, Bad Company 2, Medal of Honor... I have bought and played all of those, but I have already spent more time on Black Ops than all of them combined... And Black Ops was $60, all of those were $540...

Black ops is just a MW2 DLC with a $60 price tag, agree with me or not, it is the truthSPBoss

Despite the fact that it's from a different developer, a completely rebuilt MP that plays far better with better balance, and almost nothing (content-wise) from MW2. Yea. Total DLC.

[QUOTE="SPBoss"]Black ops is just a MW2 DLC with a $60 price tag, agree with me or not, it is the truththeafiguy

Despite the fact that it's from a different developer, a completely rebuilt MP that plays far better with better balance, and almost nothing (content-wise) from MW2. Yea. Total DLC.

[QUOTE="theafiguy"]

[QUOTE="SPBoss"]Black ops is just a MW2 DLC with a $60 price tag, agree with me or not, it is the truthAdvid-Gamer

Despite the fact that it's from a different developer, a completely rebuilt MP that plays far better with better balance, and almost nothing (content-wise) from MW2. Yea. Total DLC.

CoD has become a sure cash-in just like sports games, they come every year and people buy them.

It's funny how arrogant some people, about their video game tastes. Enjoy all your friends you must have.rabakill

The logic doesn't make sense if you say just because YOU enjoyed Black Ops more than others, it deserves the $60 price tag and people should buy it. For you personally you may think it's worth it, but if I am on neutral ground having to decide between a $20 TF2 and a $60 COD Black Ops, I would definitely lean towards TF2 even without knowing what the game is like. I am just saying that because MW2 was such a big flop (IMO and to most PC gamers), what warrants me to buy another COD with a $60 price tag? Honestly I don't know what the game is like, but just from looking at it I have no interest, especially after hearing all the performance issues.

Also, I really don't like the direction companies are pushing the price of games by making them $10 more than before. You can argue all you want about how buying food for a day will cost just as much, but what makes me want to accept this new "standard" when games offer less these days (Getting rid of good long manuals, artbooks, game boxes?)

The logic doesn't make sense if you say just because YOU enjoyed Black Ops more than others, it deserves the $60 price tag and people should buy it. For you personally you may think it's worth it, but if I am on neutral ground having to decide between a $20 TF2 and a $60 COD Black Ops, I would definitely lean towards TF2 even without knowing what the game is like. I am just saying that because MW2 was such a big flop (IMO and to most PC gamers), what warrants me to buy another COD with a $60 price tag? Honestly I don't know what the game is like, but just from looking at it I have no interest, especially after hearing all the performance issues.

Also, I really don't like the direction companies are pushing the price of games by making them $10 more than before. You can argue all you want about how buying food for a day will cost just as much, but what makes me want to accept this new "standard" when games offer less these days (Getting rid of good long manuals, artbooks, game boxes?)

BLUBBBER

Black ops is just a MW2 DLC with a $60 price tag, agree with me or not, it is the truthSPBoss

This is why:

Animatronic64

[QUOTE="Advid-Gamer"]Fyi 360 games are pirated just as much as pc gamesSPBoss

Ridiculous. Absolute non-sense. Pirated? Yes. At the same levels of PC piracy?? Uh... yea.

I'm not one to jump and blame PC game piracy on everything, but it is still very, very high on PC, and no other platform even approaches this. If PC had the same levels of piracy as consoles, then it would get more TLC from devs.

I was reading on Reuters that this game has set a new record for the game industry, but I really can't fathom why. We waited over a decade for the release of Starcraft 2, whereas a CoD game was released just last year, along with a slew of modern military shooters this year.

It's really amazing how a company can churn out essentially the same game year after year and people will continue to buy it. It's a testament to the effectiveness of marketing vs. actual quality development.

superfluidity

About Starcraft: You essentially waited a decade to play an HD version of the same game and denying it otherwise makes you no better than any other rabid COD fan. Face it, SC2 is just as over-hyped. It introduced NOTHING new to the genre and it even PLAYS like the original.

Anyone who replies back saying it's innovative can try to change my mind but the number of reviews on multiple different sites beg to differ.

About Starcraft: You essentially waited a decade to play an HD version of the same game and denying it otherwise makes you no better than any other rabid COD fan. Face it, SC2 is just as over-hyped. It introduced NOTHING new to the genre and it even PLAYS like the original.

Anyone who replies back saying it's innovative can try to change my mind but the number of reviews on multiple different sites beg to differ.

wootasifwoot

An HD, modern physics version of the game was exactly what every SC1 player wanted. Why on earth would Blizzard destroy their brilliant model?

The point is that it was a massive upgrade and definitely worth it. The situation with CoD is extremely different, as the game is basically re-released constantly with minor tweaks and a new short campaign. Full price of course.

Ridiculous. Absolute non-sense. Pirated? Yes. At the same levels of PC piracy?? Uh... yea.

I'm not one to jump and blame PC game piracy on everything, but it is still very, very high on PC, and no other platform even approaches this. If PC had the same levels of piracy as consoles, then it would get more TLC from devs.

giant11

One thing to consider is that if game development hypothetically shifted entirely away from the PC, the technically savvy would be forced onto consoles and the rate of piracy there would probably jump dramatically.

I think that publishers realize this and thus don't bother making that shift.

[QUOTE="wootasifwoot"]

About Starcraft: You essentially waited a decade to play an HD version of the same game and denying it otherwise makes you no better than any other rabid COD fan. Face it, SC2 is just as over-hyped. It introduced NOTHING new to the genre and it even PLAYS like the original.

Anyone who replies back saying it's innovative can try to change my mind but the number of reviews on multiple different sites beg to differ.

superfluidity

An HD, modern physics version of the game was exactly what every SC1 player wanted. Why on earth would Blizzard destroy their brilliant model?

The point is that it was a massive upgrade and definitely worth it. The situation with CoD is extremely different, as the game is basically re-released constantly with minor tweaks and a new short campaign. Full price of course.

Why is further innovating an already "brilliant model" a bad thing? Mythic seems to have no problem with that, same with other smaller developers such as ArenaNet. You can't excuse the fact Starcraft 2 was essentially the same game with better graphics and a new campaign (much like Black Ops minus the short campaign).

Also, I don't care for COD, I just sensed some double standards so I had to reply.

its funny how people here act as if their too good for cod. its a video game and a fun one at that.

You can't excuse the fact Starcraft 2 was essentially the same game with better graphics and a new campaign (much like Black Ops minus the short campaign).

wootasifwoot

Can't excuse? It would have been a complete travesty if it were any other way. Keep SC the same and make new ip for innovation, I like SC the way it is.

You're still not seeing the difference though. Do you honestly believe the difference between MW2 and BO is even 1/100 as great as that of SC1 and SC2? I mean, SC1 was 800x600 res sprites, the new one is fully modern graphics and physics. Why isn't this computing? It's intellectually dishonest to ignore the difference.