Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

More IW employees sue Activision


Doc Holiday

Recommended Posts

Bottom Line: Call of Duty sells. If you think that Infinity Ward matters in this at all, I would seriously consider rethinking things.

Nobody buys Call of Duty because IW makes it. They buy it because it's Call of Duty. Even the pooty Treyarch ones. Nobody cares. There are at least two Call of Duty sequels in development right now.

And nobody's going to care when they don't make another Call of Duty. And nobody's going to care when they make a new game for EA and it's basically the same thing.

Because it's not Call of Duty, and by that time that namebrand will be synonymous with Guitar Hero and people will be ready for something new.

Infinity Ward is stupid and I have no idea why people feel like they need to fight the good fight and support them when they have no idea what the real situation was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not Correct Mesmer, a lot of people who play IW games will jump ship to what ever they make next. They did it with Medal of Honor and now Call of Duty. They built it from scratch....got it popular and then the owner (EA & Activision) got greedy and wanted to keep making them over and over. To say that the next game they make at IW/respawn won't sell is incorrect. I'll go on a limb and say it will be one of the top 5 selling games the year it comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom Line: Call of Duty sells. If you think that Infinity Ward matters in this at all, I would seriously consider rethinking things.

Nobody buys Call of Duty because IW makes it. They buy it because it's Call of Duty. Even the pooty Treyarch ones. Nobody cares. There are at least two Call of Duty sequels in development right now.

And nobody's going to care when they don't make another Call of Duty. And nobody's going to care when they make a new game for EA and it's basically the same thing.

Because it's not Call of Duty, and by that time that namebrand will be synonymous with Guitar Hero and people will be ready for something new.

Infinity Ward is stupid and I have no idea why people feel like they need to fight the good fight and support them when they have no idea what the real situation was.

Ok call of duty does not just sell because of name the games that IW has been making are actually pretty good, MW2 is the best Multiplayer FPS availabe on the consoles at the moment, and COD4 was before that.

I will agree that Treyarch's games are crap, WaW felt more like a mod then a real game.

And I probable have as good of an idea as anyone with reguard what is going on with the law suit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok call of duty does not just sell because of name the games that IW has been making are actually pretty good, MW2 is the best Multiplayer FPS availabe on the consoles at the moment, and COD4 was before that.

I beg to differ. Halo beats MW2 hands down, IMO.

My problem with MW2 is how easy it is, and how much bullpoo goes on in that game. I mean, it's one of the few games where I have a valid reason to get pissed off nearly every time I get killed. Halo 3 has been out for over 2 years I think, and it is much more balanced (most of the time) and more fun. *waits for Halo Reach*

COD4 I've never played online, but I hear it was a lot better than MW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

COD4 was better than MW2, not as many flashy things but more balanced, not stupid air support and things that reward bad players. However, after MW2, people now trust Treyarch more than IW. From people I know, WaW got way better after a few months. They put out patches and decent map packs and got things going pretty well. MW2 has been out a while now and still has stupid issues, unbalanced perks, and cheats/exploits galore. They just don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

COD4 was better than MW2, not as many flashy things but more balanced, not stupid air support and things that reward bad players. However, after MW2, people now trust Treyarch more than IW. From people I know, WaW got way better after a few months. They put out patches and decent map packs and got things going pretty well. MW2 has been out a while now and still has stupid issues, unbalanced perks, and cheats/exploits galore. They just don't care.

You can never convince me that WaW is better, I will say there is a lot of BS that happens in MW2, but I've also not lost a match in my last 3 days of playing moved my W/L up by .04 and kills up by .01 to 1.93.

And CoD 4 is still the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...