Warzone I don't get the idea of Blueprints?

[QuickC5]

This is decidedly not the reason. The money goes into the devs pockets because loot crates and skins are ways A and B to squeezing the most money out of a game. Games used to come all on one cartridge/disc, no DLC or add-ons required to enjoy the full game, with [hopefully] all bugs ironed out in beta testing before launch, for a single price of like what $50? Now games have realized you can charge less (or even make the game free!) and make up the difference AND more via microtransactions and other cosmetic sales.

This is capitalism at its worst. Absolutely nobody needs 913 different gun skins. What we want is the damn bugs ironed out, the audio fixed, matchmaking cleaned up, weapons properly balanced, and new actual weapons and maps. You know, gameplay features. This is why we paid $60 for the game - not so they'd keep rolling out 50 gun skins per "season". Don't even get me started on Tracer rounds and how cartoonish those look. This game is borderlining on Fortnite more and more.

This isn't capitalism at its worst - it's just capitalism. Games cost tons of money to develop, and only so many games can be produced over a period of time. And, for every one title that is successful - many more fail.

The market determines what works and what doesn't. It's obvious players will pay money for unique looks and features. Personally, I think it's pretty smart - and the direction a lot of games will go.

I'd pay more than $20 for a COD Snake Plissken skin and Uzi.

 

[CMCFLYYY]

This isn't capitalism at its worst - it's just capitalism. Games cost tons of money to develop, and only so many games can be produced over a period of time. And, for every one title that is successful - many more fail.

The market determines what works and what doesn't. It's obvious players will pay money for unique looks and features. Personally, I think it's pretty smart - and the direction a lot of games will go.

I'd pay more than $20 for a COD Snake Plissken skin and Uzi.

Spending more effort pumping on skins and operators is not improving the game. There are bugs and gameplay mechanics that need to be fixed. They could be adding to the map or releasing a 2nd map. Why do they only have 1 map for WZ per year? Why not put some of the time and funds they keep pumping into blueprints and skins into releasing a 2nd map. Instead they seem solely focused on skins, and at this point they're basically macrotransactions - why would you pay $20 for that when 10 years ago it would've cost $2 max. It's a single operator skin and gun skin. Why would you willingly pay $20 for that small amount of content. But there are tons of people that do this all the time.

 

[KeyboardDemon]

Some really long posts on this thread and it looks like the OPs original question is getting slightly derailed or maybe even completely hijacked from a quick glance through the first page.

Correct me if I am wrong, the debate seems to be covering 2 points of view:

1: Activision and partners are going all out for some serious cash grab action which is wrong.

versus -

2: Activision and partners have massive development costs that start 2 years before the launch and then continue well after to support infrastructure and updates which is necessary to keep people playing the game so their additional revenue from blueprints and CP helps cover their costs, pay a return to investors, and make a profit.

I come from a background where we are encouraged to find a way to make money outside of our jobs, through a business, side business, or something else so that we don't put all of our eggs in 1 basket, so to speak, so my take on this is probably leaning towards supporting the second point of view.

Now, something I hear a lot from my own father, who left his job to set up his own business in 1984, is that they are only doing it to make money (despite running a business of his own), I feel viewpoint 1 above sounds a lot like this, and there is a tone that comes across as making a profit is a bad thing.

So, first let me say this which is based on my own experience of trying to run a failed business (long story, I don't want to discuss in detail) that running a business at a loss is a lot worse.

As an end-user, I want to see Activision and partners turn a fat profit on this game so that they have the incentive to continue to support and develop the game/platform further and I can get more value out of my purchase.

What I have seen this thread has already established that buying or not buying Blueprints is not a factor that will make or break the game, but some people might decide to do it because they want to personalize their on-screen presence with bullets that leave tracers, or skinned guns and masked avatars etc...

I don't know what percentage of players will pay extra for these things, but I don't think I have been penalized for not buying blueprints. I also don't agree with the statement that all their updates are purely for new blueprints for players to buy,

I have seen over 80GB of additional updates added to the game since I started playing a little while after Warzone launched. I have seen 1 of my favorite maps come back from MW3, I have found a new favorite in Shipment, and found some new game modes that I have really enjoyed playing, now if Activision were not making enough money (profit) and ended up running into a loss, I strongly suspect that updates would stop and then eventually servers would shut down and developers would be let go, as they say.

I think the comparison to EA and Loot boxes are also not really relevant, EA started heading towards random loot boxes making it harder to plan weapon progression, CoD: MW has not done that, if I want a certain attachment for a gun, I can see a clear path to get it through the gun progression options, such as getting gold skins, different crosshairs, different attachments, etc...

TLR - You don't have to buy Blueprints, buying them won't give you an advantage in the game and if you don't want Activision, its partners and investors to make a profit, nobody is forcing you to support them by buying their products.

 

[CMCFLYYY]

I have seen over 80GB of additional updates added to the game since I started playing a little while after Warzone launched. I have seen 1 of my favorite maps come back from MW3, I have found a new favorite in Shipment, and found some new game modes that I have really enjoyed playing, now if Activision were not making enough money (profit) and ended up running into a loss, I strongly suspect that updates would stop and then eventually servers would shut down and developers would be let go, as they say.

I think the comparison to EA and Loot boxes are also not really relevant, EA started heading towards random loot boxes making it harder to plan weapon progression, CoD: MW has not done that, if I want a certain attachment for a gun, I can see a clear path to get it through the gun progression options, such as getting gold skins, different crosshairs, different attachments, etc...

TLR - You don't have to buy Blueprints, buying them won't give you an advantage in the game and if you don't want Activision, its partners and investors to make a profit, nobody is forcing you to support them by buying their products.

Okay so your entire opinion is rendered invalid as soon as you said Shipment was a new favorite D).

I understand I don't have to buy any Blueprints. My issue is I feel they're spending the majority of their time cranking out Blueprints instead of improving the game itself. And sure you can grab at that 80GB number, but it's a well-known complaint by now that whatever they're doing to organize and compress their update files is broken because this CoD is the largest game in history at this point. Not to mention, bringing back 1 map from MW3 doesn't affect Warzone at all. Warzone is almost entirely unchanged since I began playing it. Sure they added a couple new weapons, but there's still horrible balance issues so 80% of the guns aren't even used in loadouts anyway. The map is still exactly the same as its always been. Not only that but the map is too small IMO - it's roughly 1/7th the size of the original Pubg map and yet there are 50% more players dropping (9km2 v. 64km2, 100 players vs 150). Maybe work on the anti-cheat a little more. Maybe fix the mantling system that lets you climb 10ft walls but not 2ft rocks. The audio could use an overhaul. You know, the things most threads seem to complain about. But instead, with each passing season all we get is 2-3 new weapons and an operator skin. Hopefully these new "trailers" they've released for season 5 are actually going to physically change something on the map this time.

Obviously I know the work hours aren't the same. But instead of cranking out droves of Blueprints, why not spend the time/money instead developing and releasing 3 more 9km2 map areas and make the new combined WZ map 36km2. IMO right now the map is way too small. You can parachute to basically anywhere you want from the plane, vehicles aren't really necessary for anything except drawing attention to yourself.

 

[Carlos]

Okay so your entire opinion is rendered invalid as soon as you said Shipment was a new favorite D).

Shipment was always a favorite. COD4's Shipment is legendary for the chaos it brought. Shipment 2019 doesn't fit the bill because of the gameplay and spawns. Otherwise it's the same shit. If you put Shipment 2019 in MWR, it would be the same chaos as Shipment.

I understand I don't have to buy any Blueprints. My issue is I feel they're spending the majority of their time cranking out Blueprints instead of improving the game itself. And sure you can grab at that 80GB number, but it's a well-known complaint by now that whatever they're doing to organize and compress their update files is broken because this CoD is the largest game in history at this point. Not to mention, bringing back 1 map from MW3 doesn't affect Warzone at all. Warzone is almost entirely unchanged since I began playing it. Sure they added a couple new weapons, but there's still horrible balance issues so 80% of the guns aren't even used in loadouts anyway. The map is still exactly the same as its always been. Not only that but the map is too small IMO - it's roughly 1/7th the size of the original Pubg map and yet there are 50% more players dropping (9km2 v. 64km2, 100 players vs 150). Maybe work on the anti-cheat a little more. Maybe fix the mantling system that lets you climb 10ft walls but not 2ft rocks. The audio could use an overhaul. You know, the things most threads seem to complain about. But instead, with each passing season all we get is 2-3 new weapons and an operator skin. Hopefully these new "trailers" they've released for season 5 are actually going to physically change something on the map this time.

Obviously I know the work hours aren't the same. But instead of cranking out droves of Blueprints, why not spend the time/money instead developing and releasing 3 more 9km2 map areas and make the new combined WZ map 36km2. IMO right now the map is way too small. You can parachute to basically anywhere you want from the plane, vehicles aren't really necessary for anything except drawing attention to yourself.

Responding to bolded. Rumor is there's a map change coming with live storyline like Fortnite. There's already teasers for it...

View: https://youtu.be/3o2vmLHXE0g

 

[CMCFLYYY]

Shipment was always a favorite. COD4's Shipment is legendary for the chaos it brought. Shipment 2019 doesn't fit the bill because of the gameplay and spawns. Otherwise it's the same shit. If you put Shipment 2019 in MWR, it would be the same chaos as Shipment.

Responding to bolded. Rumor is there's a map change coming with live storyline like Fortnite. There's already teasers for it...

View: https://youtu.be/3o2vmLHXE0g

Yea I know a ton of people love Shipment, just not my cup of tea. I prefer a slower paced game so Shipment and Rust are not my favorites.

And yea, I saw some of the teasers about what's coming. I'm hoping for major changes to the map.

 

[psujohnny03]

Okay so your entire opinion is rendered invalid as soon as you said Shipment was a new favorite D).

I understand I don't have to buy any Blueprints. My issue is I feel they're spending the majority of their time cranking out Blueprints instead of improving the game itself. And sure you can grab at that 80GB number, but it's a well-known complaint by now that whatever they're doing to organize and compress their update files is broken because this CoD is the largest game in history at this point. Not to mention, bringing back 1 map from MW3 doesn't affect Warzone at all. Warzone is almost entirely unchanged since I began playing it. Sure they added a couple new weapons, but there's still horrible balance issues so 80% of the guns aren't even used in loadouts anyway. The map is still exactly the same as its always been. Not only that but the map is too small IMO - it's roughly 1/7th the size of the original Pubg map and yet there are 50% more players dropping (9km2 v. 64km2, 100 players vs 150). Maybe work on the anti-cheat a little more. Maybe fix the mantling system that lets you climb 10ft walls but not 2ft rocks. The audio could use an overhaul. You know, the things most threads seem to complain about. But instead, with each passing season all we get is 2-3 new weapons and an operator skin. Hopefully these new "trailers" they've released for season 5 are actually going to physically change something on the map this time.

Obviously I know the work hours aren't the same. But instead of cranking out droves of Blueprints, why not spend the time/money instead developing and releasing 3 more 9km2 map areas and make the new combined WZ map 36km2. IMO right now the map is way too small. You can parachute to basically anywhere you want from the plane, vehicles aren't really necessary for anything except drawing attention to yourself.

When you said "Maybe fix the mantling system that lets you climb 10ft walls but not 2ft rocks." I died laughing. You wouldn't believe how many times I got killed trying to jump over a 2 ft tall rock. Preach brother, preach!

I would love to be able to use a variety of guns and enjoy each of them but I can either use the Grau all the time or not have a great game, those are my choices, lol.

 

[KeyboardDemon]

Okay, so your entire opinion is rendered invalid as soon as you said Shipment was a new favorite D).


Not all of us see it as a guilty pleasure, some of us see it as a real treasure.

My issue is I feel they're spending the majority of their time cranking out Blueprints instead of improving the game itself.

Well, I don't know how long it takes to crank out a blueprint, I don't think they publish that information or any information on how much time they spend on different parts of the game, I'd love to know where you got your stats from.

I tend to look at the patch notes when I want to see what's been added in the last major patch, where I see that in the last patch (1.23.00) there were 8 new playlist additions for paying customers that bought MW and only 6 for Warzone.

Given that your main issue before was with how they are making a fortune and not spending enough of it to improve the game, I would say 14 new additions in total in a month seems pretty good. In the previous month, they added 4 playlist additions to MW and 6 to Warzone, so they balance out. I remember when we had to buy a Season pass for MW3 to get these same updates that we now get for free and take for granted.

the map is too small IMO - it's roughly 1/7th the size of the original Pubg map and yet there are 50% more players dropping (9km2 v. 64km2, 100 players vs 150).

If we are going to draw comparisons between Warzone and PUBG, then maybe we should also compare how Warzone is a free to play game, in the UK the PUBG price is £26.99 at RRP and half-price on Steam at the moment. Yes, we have to buy MW to play that, but we don't need MW to play Warzone.

Maybe work on the anti-cheat a little more.

While many would argue that they are not doing enough and some of what they are doing is punishing the wrong people, we do know that they are doing something about cheats, such as getting people to register the cell/mobile phone numbers when they register to play, and issuing hardware bans amongst some of their measures to deter hackers.

Obviously I know the work hours aren't the same. But instead of cranking out droves of Blueprints, why not spend the time/money instead developing and releasing 3 more 9km2 map areas and make the new combined WZ map 36km2. IMO right now the map is way too small. You can parachute to basically anywhere you want from the plane, vehicles aren't really necessary for anything except drawing attention to yourself.

While I don't play Warzone myself, I do watch some of the recorded streams as I enjoy watching great teams at work together.

What I tend to see is that these teams have enough time to drop in at the start of a game, loot to get a decent playable loadout and then engage with other players once they are suitably equipped and ready for combat. The size of the play area doesn't come across as an issue.

I have not watched videos of people playing PUBG, so I can't say if having the extra space makes the game better for players, I would find it frustrating to have to search for many kilometers to be killed on my first enemy encounter and see the smaller map as an advantage because of that. But then I like maps like Shipment and Rust, so yeah, make of that what you will.

 

[Carlos]

Well, I don't know how long it takes to crank out a blueprint, I don't think they publish that information or any information on how much time they spend on different parts of the game, I'd love to know where you got your stats from.

There are a lot of Blueprints, is what he's saying, dude. There's a website that tells you what Blueprints are available and how to get them.

I tend to look at the patch notes when I want to see what's been added in the last major patch, where I see that in the last patch (1.23.00) there were 8 new playlist additions for paying customers that bought MW and only 6 for Warzone.

Given that your main issue before was with how they are making a fortune and not spending enough of it to improve the game, I would say 14 new additions in total in a month seems pretty good. In the previous month, they added 4 playlist additions to MW and 6 to Warzone, so they balance out. I remember when we had to buy a Season pass for MW3 to get these same updates that we now get for free and take for granted.

Those are hotfix updates. When we're talking about updates, we're talking about those large patch updates we download. People are pissed off because the updates are getting bigger, and bigger, with no real good reason. They'd be ok with the filesizes if Infinity Ward made "quality of life" improvements, but it's not the case. Its usually always with issues.

While many would argue that they are not doing enough and some of what they are doing is punishing the wrong people, we do know that they are doing something about cheats, such as getting people to register the cell/mobile phone numbers when they register to play, and issuing hardware bans amongst some of their measures to deter hackers.

How is that punishing the wrong people? The hardware ban detection only tries to find suspected cheaters. Most of the people who report that they got hardware bans usually hide the reason that they got the ban. 90% of them, almost blatantly lie about "being banned out of thin air."

When I see a thread where a player get hardware ban from Activision's anti-cheat on this site, I'm usually suspicious of them... They claim they bought the hardware brand new, but is hardware banned... That makes ZERO sense as a business. The whole point of making Warzone is to attract as many players as possible, why would a business ban a brand new hardware on registration? They'd lose money. Or a potential sale. The person must've done something to that new hardware that made Activision suspicious.

On Call of Duty Mobile people are being banned for no reason. Actually, since its being designed and built by Tencent, a company in China, that "no reason" is obvious. China does not want people on their network. Simple.

Ahem: Foreigners.

While I don't play Warzone myself, I do watch some of the recorded streams as I enjoy watching great teams at work together.

What I tend to see is that these teams have enough time to drop in at the start of a game, loot to get a decent playable loadout and then engage with other players once they are suitably equipped and ready for combat. The size of the play area doesn't come across as an issue.

I have not watched videos of people playing PUBG, so I can't say if having the extra space makes the game better for players, I would find it frustrating to have to search for many kilometers to be killed on my first enemy encounter and see the smaller map as an advantage because of that. But then I like maps like Shipment and Rust, so yeah, make of that what you will.

PUBG is basically a complicated version of Warzone. It borrowed a lot of the design conventions of Call of Duty, and is sort-of a quasi-serious/comical version of Call of Duty. That's why you'll find PUBG players crossing over from PUBG to Warzone.

I could say the same about Battlefield players in Warzone.

 

[KeyboardDemon]

There are a lot of Blueprints, is what he's saying, dude. There's a website that tells you what Blueprints are available and how to get them.

I'm finding it a bit hard to keep up with what his complaint was, he did have a lot to say about how much profit the devs were making, then it went on to how much time they spent on developing blueprints and then he was complaining about the size of the map.

The way I see blueprints is as little trophies that I can win, and I like to have goals in games beyond winning caps or collecting dog tags.

Those are hotfix updates. When we're talking about updates, we're talking about those large patch updates we download. People are pissed off because the updates are getting bigger, and bigger, with no real good reason. They'd be ok with the filesizes if Infinity Ward made "quality of life" improvements, but it's not the case. Its usually always with issues.

Fair point, but they still require time and money to work on, the same patch notes usually list general fixes, weapon balancing measures, new features as well. But yes, the file sizes are hideous and it's usually the case that we can only see what some of the updates bring when they nerf something that we like.

How is that punishing the wrong people? The hardware ban detection only tries to find suspected cheaters. Most of the people who report that they got hardware bans usually hide the reason that they got the ban. 90% of them, almost blatantly lie about "being banned out of thin air."

Yes, I agree, cheats that get caught red-handed will deny, deny, deny, but you only need to look at the number of videos being posted on YouTube about 'innocent' people being banned at the moment, commentators like ExclusiveAce and PrestigeIsKey have posted videos about bans and no option for people to appeal or even review the decision process.

When I see a thread where a player get hardware ban from Activision's anti-cheat on this site, I'm usually suspicious of them... They claim they bought the hardware brand new, but is hardware banned... That makes ZERO sense as a business. The whole point of making Warzone is to attract as many players as possible, why would a business ban a brand new hardware on registration? They'd lose money. Or a potential sale. The person must've done something to that new hardware that made Activision suspicious.

I know what you mean, often when I read those posts they read like the posters are trying to hide something from us, but there are a very large number of people claiming false positive at the moment and there are accounts that have been reviewed and re-instated by Account employees, so that does suggest false positive bans are happening.

 

[Carlos]

I'm finding it a bit hard to keep up with what his complaint was, he did have a lot to say about how much profit the devs were making, then it went on to how much time they spent on developing blueprints and then he was complaining about the size of the map.

Honestly, me too. I guess I think he feels like all IW does on their "free time" (while on payroll) is making skins, guns, sprays, etc. (Bundles in general.)

The way I see blueprints is as little trophies that I can win, and I like to have goals in games beyond winning caps or collecting dog tags.

Somewhat true. I see them like Advanced Warfare's Variants or those gold weapons you get for reaching a certain achievement. Difference is, you're buying them.

I do like that the actual Blueprints are trying to add value other than just cosmetics - by making them "whole" weapons.

But, really, that's where it ends. You can basically get the same weapon (Frankenstein'ed).

Fair point, but they still require time and money to work on, the same patch notes usually list general fixes, weapon balancing measures, new features as well. But yes, the file sizes are hideous and it's usually the case that we can only see what some of the updates bring when they nerf something that we like.

Well said.

Yes, I agree, cheats that get caught red-handed will deny, deny, deny, but you only need to look at the number of videos being posted on YouTube about 'innocent' people being banned at the moment, commentators like ExclusiveAce and PrestigeIsKey have posted videos about bans and no option for people to appeal or even review the decision process.

I know about the false positives.

I know what you mean, often when I read those posts they read like the posters are trying to hide something from us, but there are a very large number of people claiming false positive at the moment and there are accounts that have been reviewed and re-instated by Account employees, so that does suggest false positive bans are happening.

I know.

 

[KeyboardDemon]

Just a thought here.

Activision/IW save our game stats in the cloud, those same stats are generated in game as we play, surely a simple checksum that's cross referenced against their own internal database would highlight when an account has been through a hex editor?

Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk