32 player-mode in Modern Warfare 3 revealed? Plus new concept art by Activision

Business models aren't based on if something making money or not. Are based on meeting goals. See the 3DS. Was selling well, being sold for a profit. It didn't meet the goals, Nintendo's stocks felt, 30% price cut, and 50% salary reduction for Iwata.

That's who it works. Companies don't spend large amounts of money to "get their money back", they do it to meet goals. I really hope that EA was just PR'ing when they saidthey want to take CoD down, because if those are their actual goals, the future of BF as we know it may be jeopardized.

Activision makes plenty of money with other, much smallergames (licensed games, bunch of stuff), and there's the Blizzard part of Activision Blizzard.

IronBass

Meeting goals is exactly what Battlefield 3 will shrug off as nothing, because it's going to meet more than that. Bad Company 2 wasn't meant to be as big of a hit as it was. 9 million copies is one hell of a feat. Battlefield 3 will probably get that this year alone. 3DS met Nintendo's goals. It didn't meet the investors goals because they don't realize it has the same success as the DS, WITHOUT a holiday season. Investors want to ruin Nintendo and turn them into an Apple company, and they expected the 3DS to be a wild hit like smartphones for some ungodly reason.

Why would that be? You don't take down another competitor by being the same. You take them down by doing what you've always done, but way better. You don't copy the competitor. What I'm hearing is that they're prepared to give DICE the funding they need to continually improving Battlefield. Unlike Activision, who refuses to pay the proper fees they owe the developers.

Not enough to sustain their current size. Also it's just a name joining really. Blizzard still maintained it's own independence and management. They're still owned by the same parent company. Activision doesn't get to use Blizzard's profits. They just get counted in the earning reports.

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Battlefield 3 will easily make back the money and far more. It has more preorders than Black Ops from what I've heard.

ActionRemix

Not even close. According to VG Chartz, Black Ops had 2,685,410 preorders before release. BF3 has a measly 749,841. MW3 has 1,228,900.

Bad Company is dead. Bad Company was simply filler while they developed Battlefield 3. They had to test out that engine somehow.

ChubbyGuy40

Filler? Bad Company revolutionized Battlefield with destruction and by bringing it to consoles. If you're talking about story, Bad Company is FAR more interesting than the bland and vapid campaign BF3 will have. BF3 is the filler game as far as story goes.

VG Chartz man. They aren't in the least amount any more credible than you or I. Gamestop already stated MW3 surpassed Black Ops's preorders, so that tells you how credible that is.

Yeah that was directly from DICE. It was filler. Battlefield 3 showed up in some EA reports back in 2007. That's a whole year before BC1 was released. Battlefield 3 has been in development behind the scenes for years while they pumped out Bad Company. I really do agree Bad Company is far more interesting and I wish they would've stuck with them, but this isn't a Bad Company game and it wouldn't make sense to bring them in (but I really hope they have some kind of cameo in it!) Remember what I said, they had to test out the engine somehow. They couldn't just go for years without releasing a game too.

'm kind've disappointed that they said today the campaign is slightly longer than MW2. You can complete MW2 in 4-5 hours, so I really don't want that. They also said they rather have 6 hours of awesome rather than 12 hours of meh. That scares me a bit about their SP, because I don't want awesome or meh. I want fun.

Meeting goals is exactly what Battlefield 3 will shrug off as nothing, because it's going to meet more than that.

Can you prove anything of that? I'm really curious how you can say that BF3 will meet expectations when we don't even know exactlywhich their expectations are :!:

3DS met Nintendo's goals.

Nope.

http://brutalgamer.com/2011/06/16/iwata-3ds-has-not-met-sales-expectations/

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/04/26/iwata-3ds-launch-sales-below-expectations/

Why would that be? You don't take down another competitor by being the same. You take them down by doing what you've always done, but way better. You don't copy the competitor. What I'm hearing is that they're prepared to give DICE the funding they need to continually improving Battlefield. Unlike Activision, who refuses to pay the proper fees they owe the developers.

You're hearing a lot of things (like the 3DS meeting expectations), and as interesting as they're, they may or not be true. That doesn't change that, more often than not, if a business model doesn't meet goals, it's changed for another one that does.

Not enough to sustain their current size. Also it's just a name joining really. Blizzard still maintained it's own independence and management. They're still owned by the same parent company. Activision doesn't get to use Blizzard's profits. They just get counted in the earning reports.

Unproven (mostly wishful) speculation. Facts are, they share the same stocks (as a single company), head management (CEO, chairman, vice-chairman) and are listed together as a single public company. Those are facts.

Can you prove anything of that? I'm really curious how you can say that BF3 will meet expectations when we don't even know exactlywhich their expectations are :!:Can you prove that? And even then, companies answer to their investors.

You're hearing a lot of things, and as interesting as they're, they may or not be true. That doesn't change that, more often than not, if a business model doesn't meet goals, it's changed for another one that does.

Unproven (wishful) speculation. Facts are, they share the same stocks, head management (CEO, chairman, vice-chairman) and are listed together as a public company.

IronBass

Going by press releases by EA, all they want to do is take away some of that huge marketshare Activision has with CoD. They already claimed it's not aimed at taking over CoD, it has their highest amount of preorders ever, the media actually recognizes the game, it actually has advertisements, and more. No one talked about BC2 or BC1. No one cared about them except for Battlefield vets. Of course they could be hiding some agenda were they want to CoD-ize BF3, but I'm only going by what we've been told.

I wasn't arguing that. There's a reason EA still wants to support Medal of Honor. They know Battlefield has a huge market of it's own. They know they can't take it in a new direction because it'll only hurt them. They used to be the leader with Medal of Honor, and they have that under their sleeves to use to take down CoD if they wish. As for funding, I'm only going from what has happened with DICE and Battlefield development. They're giving DICE everything they need to create the next big FPS hit. The only thing they need to do now is aggressively market the hell out of it. And everyone knew about the Activision lawsuit when it was revealed. It's still going on. (Billions of dollars later, they still can't pay the fees they owe. How sad.)

If I remembered the exact article that was released during that ****storm around the price drop, I'd gladly link it. Don't have the time to hunt it down tonight though. There was another one were Iwata spoke his mind about how he'll never take the Apple route and how it was displeased (albiet not directly at them) with the investors decisions.

Actually it was in the merger details from what I read. Blizzard still has total control over their company and their assets. Kotick has no say in their activities. That was one of the agreements. Why not include profits from both on one report? Investors only understand high numbers mean good.

Back on topic - 32 players on P2P? Lag city folks. Have fun with even worse network stability and having to switch hosts every 10 seconds instead of every 20 seconds now.

Going by press releases by EA, all they want to do is take away some of that huge marketshare Activision has with CoD. They already claimed it's not aimed at taking over CoD, it has their highest amount of preorders ever, the media actually recognizes the game, it actually has advertisements, and more. No one talked about BC2 or BC1. No one cared about them except for Battlefield vets. Of course they could be hiding some agenda were they want to CoD-ize BF3, but I'm only going by what we've been told.ChubbyGuy40

That's what they're saying now, after a long time of saying they wanted to take CoD down. In fact, such a sudden change in tone says a lot.

I wasn't arguing that. There's a reason EA still wants to support Medal of Honor. They know Battlefield has a huge market of it's own. They know they can't take it in a new direction because it'll only hurt them. They used to be the leader with Medal of Honor, and they have that under their sleeves to use to take down CoD if they wish. As for funding, I'm only going from what has happened with DICE and Battlefield development. They're giving DICE everything they need to create the next big FPS hit. The only thing they need to do now is aggressively market the hell out of it. And everyone knew about the Activision lawsuit when it was revealed. It's still going on. (Billions of dollars later, they still can't pay the fees they owe. How sad.)ChubbyGuy40

They're doing that now. We aren't talking about now, though.

If I remembered the exact article that was released during that ****storm around the price drop, I'd gladly link it. Don't have the time to hunt it down tonight though. There was another one were Iwata spoke his mind about how he'll never take the Apple route and how it was displeased (albiet not directly at them) with the investors decisions.ChubbyGuy40

http://brutalgamer.com/2011/06/16/iwata-3ds-has-not-met-sales-expectations/

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/04/26/iwata-3ds-launch-sales-below-expectations/

Actually it was in the merger details from what I read. Blizzard still has total control over their company and their assets. Kotick has no say in their activities. That was one of the agreements. Why not include profits from both on one report? Investors only understand high numbers mean good.

Every studio inside a company has a certain level of independency, that's nothing new. That doesn't change how the financial parts are handled. Blizzard figures as a single company, their CEO being Kotick. They both share and have to please the same stakeholders, investors and have to ultimately answer to the same Board of Directors and Corporate Management.

If you need an example, there's this:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/03/31/acti-blizz-restructuring-assigns-new-executive-to-blizzard/

"Blizzard Entertainment rounds out the fourth unit but interestingly, Blizzard's Mike Morhaime now reports directly to newly appointed chief operating officer Thomas Tippl, who in turn reports to Activision CEO Bobby Kotick."

VG Chartz man. They aren't in the least amount any more credible than you or I. Gamestop already stated MW3 surpassed Black Ops's preorders, so that tells you how credible that is.

Yeah that was directly from DICE. It was filler. Battlefield 3 showed up in some EA reports back in 2007. That's a whole year before BC1 was released. Battlefield 3 has been in development behind the scenes for years while they pumped out Bad Company. I really do agree Bad Company is far more interesting and I wish they would've stuck with them, but this isn't a Bad Company game and it wouldn't make sense to bring them in (but I really hope they have some kind of cameo in it!) Remember what I said, they had to test out the engine somehow. They couldn't just go for years without releasing a game too.

'm kind've disappointed that they said today the campaign is slightly longer than MW2. You can complete MW2 in 4-5 hours, so I really don't want that. They also said they rather have 6 hours of awesome rather than 12 hours of meh. That scares me a bit about their SP, because I don't want awesome or meh. I want fun.

ChubbyGuy40

MW3 has surpassed the number of preorders Black Ops had at this time before release. When they say it's passed Black Ops preorders they mean it's on track to surpass it. BF3 is not. Preorders don't represent future sales, though. I predict BF3 will get a lot more post-launch sales than MW3.

I think they're going to release BC3 in the future. It'll use the BF3 engine of course, but will star our lovable heroes. No reason for them to throw them away. Before that I hope they release 2143 or Tyrannosaurus Warfare Pack, but I can only dream.

MW3 has surpassed the number of preorders Black Ops had at this time before release. When they say it's passed Black Ops preorders they mean it's on track to surpass it. BF3 is not. Preorders don't represent future sales, though. I predict BF3 will get a lot more post-launch sales than MW3.

I think they're going to release BC3 in the future. It'll use the BF3 engine of course, but will star our lovable heroes. No reason for them to throw them away. Before that I hope they release 2143 or Tyrannosaurus Warfare Pack, but I can only dream.

ActionRemix

If it has already surpassed it now, it's going to surpass it when the MP is shown tomorrow.

I actually hope they don't release it. The B-Company guys are great, but the Bad Company games aren't exactly. The SP in BC1 was good, SP in BC2 was bad. MP in BC1 was arguably bad, MP in BC2 was good. Battlefield's gameplay is far better than Bad Company's though. Yes, they do play differently. BF3 is going to feel a bit similar to BC simply because they're adding a few elements into it from BC.

They better release a damn Tyrannosaurus Warfare pack! :evil: That's simply too epic to not be made! CoD has zombies, show them up with T-rexes!