Cod Ghost Wii U DLC

Call of Duty Ghosts Wii U

Re: Cod Ghost Wii U DLC

in reply to V4N6U4RD

omg ive not once contradicted myself, and no, dlc discussion is prohibited on this forum, considered spam, locked and or deleted. nothing to do with want anyway. the numbers do not allow for dlc, plain and simple. what exactly is so difficult that you fail to grasp that concept? i watched half your vid, found it ridiculous, and closed the page. is there a language barrier here or something?

speaking of contradiction, you claimed i didnt own a wii u on the ghost forums, then said you couldnt look at the leaderboard cause you play this title there. well go post there and shut the fück up already.

Level 29
Likes: 358
Posts: 3154
Registered: ‎28-12-2012

Re: Cod Ghost Wii U DLC

in reply to BobbyMcGee

You finally got something right...There is clearly a language barrier, and its that you don't seem to understand English. Also you keep forgetting you're previous posts (you should read what you write). So I'll explain, I said I "doubt" that means I posed a theory, and not a claim. You even acknowleged I had "doubt" when you replied and you went in the direction that you needed to prove someting which I still don't understand. You "claim" that the lack of DLC support is the result of numbers and not money. If you read the discussion between me and Barolb, you'd see the connection of money, numbers, and business, yet you insist that money is NOT a factor in business? You know money is normally quantified in numbers? So far that's a lie and a contradiction in a single post. You can't tell me what to do on a public forum, unless you're the admin. But I will defer to WiimotesRus02 that DLC discussion is prohibitted, so when it come to you DLC talk sure I'll shut up. I'd just like to point out that I'm the 2nd user you don't want to discuss anything with, you asked Barolb to not reply and you just told me to shut up. I'm perfectly content to have this discussion, maybe you're the one who's losing composure. You seem to be pretty upset with a video I made over a year ago, add a few dislikes and move on, doesn't bother me. Hey it's double XP weekend, relax and play some Ghosts, or hop over to BlackOps2 and run some matches against Barolb. He seems smarter than you, you might learn something from him.

Level 1
Likes: 0
Posts: 15
Registered: ‎22-01-2013

Re: Cod Ghost Wii U DLC

in reply to V4N6U4RD

I wasn't insulting Bobby >_> I also think there were several instances where you are missing parts of the argument.

"which the community has more or less agreed upon is that the Publisher Activision doesn't see a profit in pursuing DLC support for Wii U, which is inaccurate"

Like what I noted about the playerbase being continuously split, profit can also be an aspect of this same argument. Since it costs money to do development...: If you spend 200 hours doing programming, and expect a return profit that is equal to those 200 hours worked on through another, but more profitable product, what happens if that projected profit margin is not met? You can attribute this to being another reason why paid DLC is not on the Wii U for Call of Duty. Match making is one side of the argument, but business wise you can also assume the money that could have been potentially made through other routes were not met through this particular route (bringing paid DLC to the Wii U). It's not that it isn't right. Nobody here but the developers know the full argument as they are right in the middle of this; they are the ones doing the work. Us people here, these people who are debating about it on a forum, know next to nothing about the matters involved. We can only assume and speculate. Before you even wrote this, Bobby wrote the following:

"the reason we dont get dlc is a playerbase issue, do you even own a wii u? "

He was implying the same argument i made. The references quote above is the reply to this point Bobby made:

"and how is people believing its a money issue my fault? it probably isnt even profitable to make cod on wiiu..."

He was once again implying a possibility, as per the use of the word "probably". Which, actually, Bobby does have a point in regards to this though. The possibility of it being profitable are less with a smaller install base. These past two games have been direct ports, with some optimization. A_Trey_U has noted as such that they had to add some special "Nintendo code", i think A_Trey_U's exact words were? The matter is this: Because it is business, it's entirely possible that a monetary incentive is lacking due to a lack of aforementioned business (previous post I made, I believe). Smaller install base = a small amount of people you can distribute a product to; a large install base = a large amount of people you can distribute a product to. With the larger install base comes a larger possible product margin. Because the Wii U has a smaller install base, it is possible to state that there is a lack of monetary incentive as there is a lack of players. Because there is a lack of players, you can also say that by introducing such a thing it could harm the player base economy that has been built up since the release(s) of each game.

For another example, if a game like ZombiU was made specially for the Wii U, but did not turn a profit at 400,000 copies sold, then what is that suppose to state for a port of another game to the console? Sure it's cheaper, but there exists a possibility that the game did not turn a profit with the number of games sold; thus it's entirely possible that Call of Duty isn't profitable on the Wii U.This is considering the sales numbers of Black Ops 2 and Ghosts on Wii U, of course.

"Hey it's double XP weekend, relax and play some Ghosts, or hop over to BlackOps2 and run some matches against Barolb. He seems smarter than you, you might learn something from him."

I quit CoD a few months ago. And actually, I'm fairly sure most people on this board are aware of that. I only come by to visit here some days. Mainly when I'm writing tests as a means of letting off some steam or anything. I'm currently studying for a Intro to Psychology exam, which will be happening in less than a week, and I honestly lack a heck of alot of motivation to continue studying today. I procrastinated too much

Being "smart" doesn't have anything to do with this debate...

Level 12
Likes: 102
Posts: 579
Registered: ‎22-09-2011

Re: Cod Ghost Wii U DLC

in reply to barolb

Now this is probably where our views will diverge: I was insulting Bobby, but that's because he annoyed me...What I saw was a question on the internet and at the time it was listed as not answered, I decided that some input was necessary, but with the fact that WiiU now had the Free Fall DLC Map was some kind if anomaly. I thought the process needed investigation, and I learned about the licensing process.

Now I'll admit your structured narrative style leaves little margin for arguing, and honestly I only catch about 60% of your vocabulary, and maybe 75% of your context.Thorough and accurate! So I must concede, well played sir!

But I'm glad to see you're open minded to learning, and there was 1 minor factoid you're missing

Call of Duty 3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia(2006 & Possibly a launch title)

Call of Duty: World at War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2008)

As a Wii owner with both these titles, CoD3 did support wii-mote control schemes, but this changed slightly in W@W.

I know compared to your contribution to this topic, that's nothing, but that's about the only thing you missed. Aside from that you're spot on.

Level 1
Likes: 0
Posts: 15
Registered: ‎22-01-2013

Re: Cod Ghost Wii U DLC

in reply to V4N6U4RD

V4N6U4RD wrote:



Now this is probably where our views will diverge: I was insulting Bobby, but that's because he annoyed me...What I saw was a question on the internet and at the time it was listed as not answered, I decided that some input was necessary, but with the fact that WiiU now had the Free Fall DLC Map was some kind if anomaly. I thought the process needed investigation, and I learned about the licensing process.



Now I'll admit your structured narrative style leaves little margin for arguing, and honestly I only catch about 60% of your vocabulary, and maybe 75% of your context.Thorough and accurate! So I must concede, well played sir!



But I'm glad to see you're open minded to learning, and there was 1 minor factoid you're missing


Call of Duty 3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia(2006 & Possibly a launch title)


Call of Duty: World at War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2008)


As a Wii owner with both these titles, CoD3 did support wii-mote control schemes, but this changed slightly in W@W.


I know compared to your contribution to this topic, that's nothing, but that's about the only thing you missed. Aside from that you're spot on.


Freefall was nothing special.  Well the situation as to why it was free was nothing special.  We got it simply because all consoles ended up getting it for free.  Apparently it was a business move on Activision's part to compete with Titanfall.  Treyarch was kind enough to grace us with the free map as well.  The only reason it's a big deal is because Nintendo consoles don't typically get free maps.  I am thankful they decided to give it to us, but the only reasons we got it is 1) Everyone did.  And 2) The Treyarch Wii U team was nice enough to hook us up with it.

Thanks again ATU, and the rest of the team, for the free map. 

Level 33
Likes: 490
Posts: 4011
Registered: ‎17-01-2012

Re: Cod Ghost Wii U DLC

in reply to like2nap03

I agree with 99% of what you're saying. Consider Treyarch gaining experience. When they made CoD3, W@W, and BlackOps1 in Infinity Ward's shadow. CoD3 was still pretty basic, W@W featured nearly the same level up and perk systems introduced in CoD4MW, and BLOPS1 used the same engine as CoD4MW (but Treyarch designed maps made it worthwhile). Uniquely Treyarch went their own way with the pro-perk system, and introduced the world to Nuketown (In my opinion the most fun Map ever!) So everytime they ported over an IW version of CoD (ie: ModernWarfareReflex, MW3, & Ghosts) they get a chance to learn the updates, the balancing techniques, and design features to incorporate into their next CoD project. So if Activision is still publishing CoD in 2015, Treyarch could potentially have the most polished and challenging CoD we've ever seen. Just to add Infinity Ward actually said in the development of Ghosts they used the Pick 10 system as the template for the Loadout system in Ghosts, seriously since when have we ever heard Infinity Ward say they were following Treyarch? I totally agree Treyarch loves the WiiU, & I hope they port over Sledgehammer's 2014 CoD

Level 1
Likes: 0
Posts: 15
Registered: ‎22-01-2013

Re: Cod Ghost Wii U DLC

in reply to V4N6U4RD

V4N6U4RD wrote:



I agree with 99% of what you're saying. Consider Treyarch gaining experience. When they made CoD3, W@W, and BlackOps1 in Infinity Ward's shadow.


just when i thought i had heard it all.

sledgehammer finished mw3, and treyarch handles all nintendo ports btw.

Level 29
Likes: 358
Posts: 3154
Registered: ‎28-12-2012

Re: Cod Ghost Wii U DLC

in reply to V4N6U4RD

V4N6U4RD wrote:


and introduced the world to Nuketown (In my opinion the most fun Map ever!)


You and I just aren't going to get along are we? 

Level 33
Likes: 490
Posts: 4011
Registered: ‎17-01-2012
Highlighted

Re: Cod Ghost Wii U DLC

in reply to like2nap03

Now I know what it must look like when I argue with Castiel

Level 21
Likes: 239
Posts: 1626
Registered: ‎11-06-2013

Re: Cod Ghost Wii U DLC

in reply to V4N6U4RD

I've been keeping tabs on this for the past few days.

That first point you made about Nintendo licensing makes sense, but in order for developers and publishers to agree to that, the developers and publishers must be paid, no? If they are paid so much to license/distribute their game, then some sort of contract must be in place, and in eithercase the developer/publisher makes money off of the eShop release. Nintendo could make more, over longer periods of time, but the developer and publisher would still benefit as the sales expectations are what they're looking at, and if this is how it were to work, then Nintendo must pay an equal or greater sum of money in order to gain this opportunity. The Wii U's position does not allow for a situation where Nintendo can pay less to receive more. Therefore, in eithercase all parties still benefit, but Nintendo would benefit more over time, not directly after the release. And, without proper sales data of eShop games, it's difficult to tell for certain IF they actually make back the amount they pay.

Licensing doesn't mean they own it. All of us here own a Call of Duty title, but we don't "own" it, we simply only have the license to use it. That is how software works. Rights to distribute are another thing. Nintendo could posses the rights to distribute a game, but they must buy the game from the publisher. In a sense, you could consider Nintendo a retailer. Like GameStop and all the rest, they still make a profit off of selling the games, therefore, Nintendo is simply doing the same. It's of no consequence that Nintendo is doing this. If Nintendo is the one pulling the strings, then you can assume that they do not wish to buy the rights for distribution, for the Call of Duty titles, to be released on eShop. With regards to Free Fall, that was a "free" map with the purchase of the game on the other platforms, therefore you don't have to assume they bought the rights to distribute it. It wouldn't make any sense. With regards to development on the CoDs, Treyarch is usually the one handling it. Porting over a game takes many months, and porting over an entire map should take a while too. Would their schedule allow the time to port over a map? Or even would they be allowed to?

I don't believe it's one sided. No company is free from guilt, and no company should be treated as such. Which is why I usually find something wrong with Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo fanboys. One guy over a discussion about Arkham origin's DLC not coming to Wii U was calling out Warner Bros. I asked the person if they purchased the game, and they answered honestly: "No". That is one reason why I think fanboys are usually full of themselves (and this is not directed to you, but a point I would like to raise about companies). No company should be treated higher than the other. They want to make money, and us consumers are what provide it. In a sense, we are also apart of the companies because we work for firms, and out money then goes back into circulation to firms and services offered by our communities and governments.

Because I don't own Ghosts, nor did I buy it, I don't believe I have the purpose to criticize the game. That is why anything I will note will be strictly on what I believe I should be able to reply to from having bought Black Ops 2 and past CoDs.

"The question of this board was to determine why Wii U doesn't have DLC, which the community has more or less agreed upon is that the Publisher Activision doesn't see a profit in pursuing DLC support for Wii U, which is inaccurate (And this lie is all your fault Mr. McGee)"

I thought we agreed, back in Black Ops 2, that the playerbase was too low to allow paid DLC. Free DLC or specialized for individual use is another story. Heck, wasn't the Assassin's Creed DLC mainly skins, missions and continued single player story? If that is so, then Black Ops 2's and Ghosts are contrary to that as they require players to make the purchase worthwhile (I think at least). The purchases were mainly multiplayer based, and without a significant playerbase it really is a no-wonder to assume it wasn't worth it.

"If these companies see profit in supporting DLC on Nintendo systems, why doesn't Activision nor EA see profit? Since you apparently can confirm lack of DLC on the eShop without even looking (remember your very 1st reply to me on this board?) I'm curious what your explanation for Ubisoft and Square-Enix wasting money might be?"

EA won't support the Wii U at all until it becomes more profitable (they say, but I'm a bit skeptical of that); Activision releases all their games for the console. Destiny might be the first title not on the Wii U, from Activision, to my knowledge. Nonetheless, it's simple: What pushes a video game console in terms of sales? Service? Games? word of mouth? All these things have a part in pushing sales, and games might as well be one of the top reasons. Support for games too. Ubisoft, Activision, and all the other publishers see that Nintendo needs to actually succeed for them to boost their profits. In the short run, taking a slight loss by providing games on the console may entice consumers to buy it. In the long run, they could profit off of the continuous support they have given. It could easily also be through contracts. Nintendo could have had game contracts with these companies, and therefore the games are suppose to come to the console in support of the contracts they had together.

There isn't just one simple reason to these things. There can be many different reasons why something doesn't work out. For example, I managed to pick up $1700 worth of computer software by giving some money to charity. How does that work out? I got more software in monetary value than I donated, but i still donated... It's business. Despite the fact that i flunked out of Macro Economics, I did learn one important thing from that course: The majority of the time business is just business. Businesses want to make money and if they don't see long term benefits then there are none to them. Clearly, Activision and Ubisoft see long-term benefits, especially considering the CoD titles on Wii sold over 1M units each (except for MW3), and Ubisoft's Just Dance sold exceptional well on the Wii as well. Wii games also cost much less to make than PS3 and 360 games for quite a time, so they both must have profited of those game series quite well. They both had some success in the past, so what is to say they shouldn't continue? These are just examples. It's 1am, so excuse me if I screwed up my writing a bit.

In terms of DLC, it was known that the Wii was even capable of some DLC in the later portion of its life, and of course the Wii U at the very beginning of its life (Assassin's Creed 3, and the promise of a more structured distribution center on Wii U). Heck, I think the before-game patches gave it away. Instead of waiting for a patch in-game, I would have to wait at the home screen for the patch to finish. I noticed this right away when trying ZombiU on launch.

"Since Black Ops 2, Treyarch ports over the XBox360 version of Call of Duty using a templated control protocol which contains prescripted code allowing Non-Treyarch editions of CoD to have wii-mote support."

I would think they made this around the time the Wii was released (around CoD3 and WaW). When you code stuff, and you have something working on one thing, you could be lazy and just copy and paste the code over, but if the code works it works. If it needs to be slightly tweaked to work then it just needs to be tweaked to work. If they need to tweak the code, then this supports the point that coding for Wii != Wii U.

Also, in regard to your post about that "new" engine, here is what I have to say about that.

"Next Gen Technology" - YouTube

I think there was alot of misconception and misleading information out there, but that was the beginning, and this is now. This is many, many months after the game launched, and those who have played it, looked into it and the likes should understand. I'm pretty sure most people here already understood quite clearly that the engine they "made" was not created out of nothing, but tweaked, heavily modified, etc. Whatever you would like to call it from a previous engine. Infinity Ward just decided to call it new because it was so different from before it was modified? I don't really remember, but were the modifications made apparent or at least noted properly—As being significant? (besides the fish AI bit).

Level 12
Likes: 102
Posts: 579
Registered: ‎22-09-2011

Studios