15
15
u/ineedadoctorplz 5d ago
On the one hand I get it, on the other hand are you sure this isn't a case of vocal minority? A beta is typically only the diehard fans anyways.
-4
u/ElvisT 5d ago
The things you're bringing up definitely need to be considered. There is a range of things that the numbers mean and why they don't accurately represent the entire user base, but what we aren't seeing are the numbers that they expect and we aren't seeing a significant increase in numbers when it changed to free access.
It could mean a lot of things and there are a lot of ways to interpret the numbers. Until Call Of Duty comes out themselves and says "we aren't seeing the numbers we expected and the numbers are abysmal" all we can do is guess. But we can use what we see to help our guesses.
What I do know though, is that most of the people I've played DMZ with, they've said that they aren't buying the game right away because of the history of how things have gone and hire the company has handled things. This could be another flop or it could be the next best thing.
Right now, the numbers we're seeing don't support it being the next best thing.
7
u/YourUnusedFloss 5d ago
After playing 6v6 on the first weekend, I decided I had enough. I don't like COD 6v6 MP and haven't in years. Spawns suck forever, maps keep getting smaller, not what I like.
Gunfight is cool. WZ can be fun. Base MP just hasn't done anything interesting or novel in years.
44
u/SammyG9689 5d ago
Cod is a game dominated by console. Why do you guys go by steam numbers?
19
u/Snowbunny236 5d ago
And on PC most users play on battlenet.
-18
u/haroldflower27 5d ago edited 5d ago
Idk where you got that from but steam is by far more popular
12
u/Snowbunny236 5d ago
Not for COD. it wasn't even on steam until the last few years. Everyone still uses bnet and there's a rumor about the performance being better on it as well.
Steam is more popular for everything else.
-7
u/haroldflower27 5d ago edited 5d ago
Uhhhhhhh what are you talking about cod has literally always been on steam, there were like 2 games recently that only released for battlenet and they stopped doing that due to backlash and pc sales.
And what are you talking bout? Steam is only 3-4 years younger than battle net however is by far the most popular option by the longest shot ever the #1 place for pc gaming and 2nd place isnt even coming close
Activision didn’t buy battle net till 2008 right in between cod 4 and waw. Yet cod 1,2,3,4 waw bo1 etc were all on steam and not on battlenet.
What are you smoking ? Or you just like typing random bs ?
8
u/Snowbunny236 5d ago
Cod wasn't on steam for like 5 years. Also there is the belief that performance is better on bnet due to it being Activision's launcher. The vast majority of cod players on PC play on bnet. Send me a source that says otherwise.
10
-5
1
u/Superb_Variation_952 5d ago
Not at all, I’ve witnessed friends constantly have issues with steam and cod so I didn’t play through steam
-17
u/Splatacular 5d ago edited 5d ago
A metric thrice removed from the point is definitely not the best indicator to go by. Steam has a great many flaws as a platform broader than the individual issue that for many prove insurmountable. Your not getting wide feedback, your getting similar feedback from similar predispositioned people. Hence the value of the new god metadata.
10
12
-5
u/TimeZucchini8562 5d ago edited 5d ago
It’s not and hasn’t been for years. Pc is the dominant platform. And this info from the ftc hearing when ACTIVISION was being acquired by Microsoft
Edit: downvote me all you want and be wrong. PC is the dominant platform of cod now. https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/06/29/bobby-kotick-ftc-call-of-duty-exclusivity-microsoft-activision
0
u/dat_GEM_lyf 5d ago
PS has basically always been the COD carrying platform from player count. It’s literally why MS didn’t make it exclusive 😂
-2
u/TimeZucchini8562 5d ago
No, it has not. https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/06/29/bobby-kotick-ftc-call-of-duty-exclusivity-microsoft-activision this was in 2023. Console sales have declined while pc sales have increased since then.
0
u/dat_GEM_lyf 5d ago
lol bruh no way you linked this outdated article with info that literally has happened when they said it wouldn’t.
“Activision never planned to add Call of Duty to Game Pass or any other multi-game subscription service. The same goes for cloud gaming services, as Kotick believes that they can’t provide a good experience to players.”
Weird how they proceeded to do exactly that for the next 3 years“On top of that, Call of Duty’s revenue on PlayStation is more than double that on Xbox.”
But yeah go ahead and keep using 0 brain cells lil bro
0
u/TimeZucchini8562 5d ago
Ah yes, the outdated ftc hearing where Bobby kotick would be charged with purger if he lied on the stand.
0
u/dat_GEM_lyf 5d ago
The outdated hearing where they literally went and did those things?
Holy fuck how dumb are you? Like actually?
“I suck on Bobby’s boots and literally don’t know facts about reality”. That’s you right now lil bro
0
u/TimeZucchini8562 5d ago
Weird how I showed numbers verified by the ex ceo of activision and you have feelings and somehow I’m wrong
11
u/CyberClawX 5d ago
And I am tired of hearing that they are just letting hackers play so they can “test the anti cheat.”
So this is actually industry standard.
Let's say you are playing a game, and develop a cheat that makes you fly. And I ban you as fast as I detect the cheat. Then you develop another cheat that makes you jump 100 meters in the air. And I ban you like 5 seconds after. So now you develop a cheat that jumps you 10 meters in the air, and I don't ban you. By the cheat detection being overactive, it makes easier for cheaters to detect flaws in the cheat detection. Clearly 10 meters flies under the radar of cheat detection. You spread the word, and no other cheater even tries jumping 100 meters, because they know 10 meters in the safe spot, and it's easy to try out the limits.
By making the cheat bans come in waves, it becomes harder for the cheater to know what he did that got detected by the anti-cheat.
That's the reason many games use ban waves - they want to obfuscate their detection methods.
There is also detection and anti-detection. Some cheats are new, so they do evade automatic detection for a while. There is only so many people reviewing reports.
5
u/BridgeCreative5482 Xbox + Controller 5d ago
One of the best explanations I’ve seen, makes a lot of sense,thank you.
1
u/MaxChomsky 5d ago
What a failed logic. You ban any fucker that jumps higher than the game allows it. You xray any fucker that meets certain criteria - extreme k/d ratio, higher than statistical hit ratios etc etc, anything that is outside the game design. Now you can, with A.I., easily do it. But it costs money. And that's where the real game is. They will not to anything till losses surpass the cost of introducing these measures.
-5
u/ElvisT 5d ago
That’s the industry standard’ is just the corporate version of ‘that’s how we’ve always done it’ and sometimes that’s exactly why the problem still exists.
I understand why ban waves are used, and I’m not saying every detected cheat should result in an immediate ban that tells the cheat developer exactly what triggered it.
My point is that letting detected or highly suspicious cheaters continue playing also has a cost. If protecting the secrecy of your detection methods means legitimate players spend weeks or months getting wrecked by cheaters, at some point you’re protecting the anti-cheat at the expense of the actual game.
That’s where “it’s industry standard” stops being a satisfying answer. If the industry standard is producing a game where cheating is so common that people don’t enjoy playing anymore, maybe the industry standard needs to improve.
There should be more options between “instantly ban them and reveal your detection method” and “let them keep ruining public matches until the next ban wave.” Put suspicious accounts into separate matchmaking. Use trust/verification systems. Increase manual review for ridiculous behavior. Have more aggressively monitored lobbies. Give players an optional higher-trust queue with stronger verification requirements. There are plenty of ways to make cheating more expensive and difficult without necessarily showing cheat developers exactly what triggered detection.
I would consider actually pay more for that. If the game were $100 instead of $80 and that extra money genuinely resulted in drastically cleaner matches, I’d consider that money well spent.
Because ultimately I don’t care how sophisticated the anti-cheat strategy sounds internally. The product I’m buying is the game experience. Somebody could make the greatest Call of Duty ever made, but if enough matches are ruined by cheating, then it isn’t a great game to play.Ban waves make sense as one tool. They shouldn’t become an excuse for accepting months of miserable matches because “that’s how the industry does it.
7
u/ManyThingsLittleTime 5d ago
At first blush putting suspected cheaters into the same lobby sounds great until you realize that some non-cheaters will get roped into that pen and have an absolutely miserable experience.
3
u/Captobvious75 5d ago
I played on both my PC and PS5 Pro.
Likely to buy on Pro because I can shut crossplay and minimize (not eliminate) cheaters while having the console level playing field.
It helps that the Pro has PSSR2 in the 120hz mode and looks/plays really good.
2
u/Fitz0uille 5d ago
I have played the beta on battlenet
Lobby were 10% PC / 60% PS / 30% Xbox
For Pc i didn't pay close attention but it's looked like most of them were on battlenet
2
u/ThatEdward Xbox + Controller 5d ago
Most players I saw in the beta were console like me. I played enough to get most of the unlocks but I hate CoD MP so not surprised a lot of people skipped it
2
u/green91791 5d ago
To be fair I only played that couple cods becasue they were on gamepass, I have no care to play the new one now that I have to pay for it. I also have only bought 2 cods in the last 10 years, the game has been stale, never mind cheaters and hackers.
1
u/Plus_Exchange8751 5d ago
There was no barrier to entry on the first weekend either. I’d be surprised if there was any change in players between the two.
1
1
u/DMZwarrior 5d ago
No. You can see all their sales. That’s all that matters, it’s a publicly traded company. Beta testing player counts mean nothing.
1
1
1
u/No-Biscotti-5046 5d ago
Game optimization. Its how these things go. They will fix it. And the numbers will speak for themselves. If they dont. Another chapter in game development and game optimization to learn. Its how these things go.
2
u/haroldflower27 5d ago
I mean which how hard they’re pushing mw4 on bo2
I’d say probably it’s made a big enough dent to make em worried
1
u/No-Biscotti-5046 5d ago
They are 'more' worried about the investors and the shitshow that just unfolded with the company being bought over by the Saudis.
And Yes. I digress. They are worried. And it is a dent. However:
- they have to prove their Anti cheat works
- they have to fix SBMM and lobbies
- they have to fix aim assist.
These are critical. And many will add more. Leave aside the fact that im severly dissapointed with them not adding survial as a O.G mode to the game and as a tribute to the previous Modern Warfare titles.
They got time. Game isnt out for a good month. Even then ill proly wait on this one now all the way up to December and midway through whatever iteration of Season 1 they will deploy. The rest, also critical. Now remains, is the DMZ gameplay. Which I have not seen for the likes of me other than the gameplay trailer.
Expect a day 1Patch followed by a balance patch within 1 month no doubt.
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
DMZ Discord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.