Antisocial Network: Call of Duty Elite Trailer

By Alec Meer on May 31st, 2011 at 9:28 am.

Elt3? El73? What?

The day has come: Activision has finally introduced Plan B. Plan B is much like Plan A, in that it also involves making an absolute crapton of money out of Call of Duty. This time, it’s called Call of Duty Elite, and it’s a social networking, clan-arranging, video-sharing, stat-analysing online service for COD multiplayer. Some aspects for it will be free; others will involve a paid subscription. The gaming world had a sharp intake of breath this morning, and you probably will too.

There’s an *apparently* leaked YouTube trailer of Elite below, but as I believe the publications who Activision chose to show the service to are under some sort of embargo, you’d better hurry and watch it before it either gets pulled or just posted everywhere else anyway.

We weren’t shown the service and thus have no embargo to worry about. Hooray!

Ok, so Activision are pulling uploads of the trailer at a rate of knots. Take two! If the above one’s gone by the time you get it, another copy currently remains on Eurogamer.

So: “Basically going to change the way we play multiplayer”, eh? Steam, Xbox Live and Bungie.Net will probably all have things to say about that. Looks like a pretty good service in terms of what CoD players are likely to want, especially stuff like video and map sharing, stat madness and forming clans and competing for unlocks, but that Big Huge Question is what’s going to be free and what’s going to paid for – and just how much are they going to ask for it?

Controversy, basically. And possibly highly profitable controversy.

Still, bonus points for the video including double rainbows and The Touch from the 80s Transformers movie. Arise, Rodimus Premium Pricing. Oh, and there’s a very brief Modern Warfare 3 snippet at the end too.

Activision are apparently at pains to state that this is not a pay-to-play service, but a pay-for-something-else service. Are you interested, or are you immediately stricken with deep loathing?

Update: the Wall Street Journal reckons Elite will cost under $8 a month. Or “about three glasses of beer”, as I like to think of it.

, , , , , .

102 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. godgoo says:

    Deep loathing. but I already was.
    Edit: in truth I care not. MW2 alienated me from COD, this just squashes the potentiality for me to return to the series. I only generally have time for one online FPS in my life; I’m still playing BC2 and looking forward to B3. so, no biggie until Dice make an uncharacteristic move into this business model.

    • Icarus says:

      Can’t help but agree with this. And I know it’s possibly unproductive to just pin this on Kotick, but he isn’t exactly a gamer-friendly frontman for all this.

    • Rii says:

      Uncharacteristic? The only thing that’s uncharacteristic about all this is that DICE didn’t get there first. This is a company that is producing and marketing DLC for a game that isn’t even out yet.

    • Recidivist says:

      You mean the free bonus stuff you get for pre-ordering? Right…

      I mean, what they could have done is NOT give you extra stuff for free, and instead wait a month or so and charge £10 for it. Is that what you prefer?

    • TheLordHimself says:

      Yes, and so far all the BC2 updates that include a lot of extra maps have been free. Go figure.

    • Rii says:

      [Nope, guess again about why your comments are getting deleted.]

    • godgoo says:

      indeed: COD MW2 released a few new maps including two recycled maps from MW. BC2 release some new maps including two recycled maps from BC, the difference? one of em cost a tenner, one was free…. I wonder which was which?

    • Amun says:

    • rivalin says:

      Grrrr. Someone needs to expose Kotick’s affair with his secretary or proclivity for rent boys, he just needs to go away

    • Grape says:

      @rivalin:
      Why the hell would being outed as having extramarital affairs do anything to damage his career? Not everyone is a Republican politician.

      Dumbass.

    • rivalin says:

      @ Grape, you have no manners and you’re indredibly ignorant as well.

      If the CEO of a Fortune 500 company was caught doing something like that they’d be out on their ass.

      Mark Hurd, the CEO of Hewlett Packard, and Harry Stonecipher the CEO of Boeing were both ousted over affairs. Oh and Democrats have to resign over affairs too, not just evil conservatives.

      If you’re going to be rude at least try not to make a fool of yourself at the same time.

    • Alexnader says:

      Can’t believe I’m going to use my first post to defend something to do with Call Of Duty but here goes.

      One of the most common general complaints I hear is “there’s no teamwork in CoD”, so surely something that integrates all the social aspects of FPS gaming should be welcomed by fanboys and haters of the series alike. Frankly I’m annoyed that DICE doesn’t have anything like this, hell Bad Company 2 didn’t even have (working) integrated voice chat.

      As for the price, we’ll have to wait and see how cutthroat it is.

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      Why? Why does it matter if a CEO has an affair (and gets caught?). Do they run for the job on a family values platform?

    • gwathdring says:

      It’s a PR thing. It looks better to customers, or at least society has lead company executives to believe that it looks better to customers when they oust people caught in tabloid-esque social crossfire. Should we punish people for things society has decided aren’t, generally speaking, acceptable? Within reason, yes. Is it within reason to expect a man who runs a video game company to step down because of sex-related, non-criminal immorality? I’d say hell no, it isn’t within reason. But I’d also say something similar when it comes to most political positions. The trouble is, both types positions are all about public relations. So even if it doesn’t effect their ability to perform the nuts and bolts of legislature, it affects politicians’ credibility and report with the public–a rather important part of their job. I suppose then it becomes a question of whether or not we as the public should let that sort of thing affect a politician’s credibility.

      I don’t buy the “but it shows dishonesty” argument. I think there are a lot of reasons not to assume someone is dishonest in all spheres of life because of their mistakes and lies related to sex and relationships. I also think social pressures around sex and power in America (and Britain? I’m not up on British or European sexual culture …) make sexual decisions a piss poor measure of general moral fiber. But when your job is not only about public perception, but about forming lasting, trusting relationships with other politicians and with the public … I think we can ditch the matter of public perception for a moment and say that someone who doesn’t handle personal relationships well might have some issues with relationships of a less personal sort. That’s a rather logical way to explain caring about the sexual proclivities of politicians. There’s an issue with this logic, though, and that’s that some people can separate personal from public/political relationships. There are effective, open politicians with turbulent home lives or extra-marital affairs. We as a society have created a distinction between home and office, private and public, that seems to run all the way back to the way we categorize and approach relationships. No one can separate them perfectly, but a lot of people separate them well enough that we shouldn’t care. More importantly, following the logic that we want to persecute politicians for their bad relationship decisions, we should be worried about anyone who isn’t good at relationships, including the guy who tries really hard but can never hang onto a date for more than two dinners and the woman who has commitment issues and just lost her second fiance. But I think the moment we start caring about those sorts of personal details, every bit as relevant to a politician’s ability as an extra-marital affair (read that sentence how you will) … we’ve gone too far. We’re looking at the wrong side of the coin–we can tell how good a politician is best by simply looking at their actual political relationships and decisions. You know, the way a workplace performance evaluation would work. But that’s DIFFICULT. It’s much easier to say “Oh look, his pants are down! Fire the bastard!”

      So I don’t think it should matter. But that it matters to so many people, matters because any job that deals with public relations is not beholden to what “should” be important, but rather what is percieved as important. Further more, that is matters to so many people says a lot about our society and what we can do to improve our politicians, CEOs and people of power.

  2. Baka says:

    • rayne117 says:

      I guess this is the first time Kotick isn’t the pig huh?

  3. Spider Jerusalem says:

    This is gross. Make your games that I dislike, fine. But this is just awful.

    Let’s hope this is more LaserDisc than DVD.

  4. Teddy Leach says:

    All of the money. All of it. ALL OF IT.

    Good job I’ve not contaminated my PC with any Cowwadoody for years.

  5. Dzamir says:

    If they follow the Valve model, pay for optional and not mandatory items and have fun even with basic weapons, they will succeed. But, looking at the current state of COD unlocks, I don’t think they will follow this model.

  6. BunnyPuncher says:

    “Are you interested, or are you immediately stricken with deep loathing?”

    Do you even need to ask?

  7. JYzer says:

    “This time, it’s called Call of Duty Elite, and it’s a social networking, clan-arranging, video-sharing, stat-analysing online service for COD multiplayer.” Because if there’s anyone you desperately want to be in a social network with, it’s raging 14 year old COD pubbies. *shudder*

  8. Raiyan 1.0 says:

    I don’t really care about paid CoD subscriptions, so here’s this song:

    Little children near and far
    Don’t know where your parents are
    Cry directly in this jar,
    I’ll be drinking at the bar.

    Sip-sip-sippin’ on orphan tears…

  9. AoM_AJER says:

    This just seems like Bungie.net, except Bungie.net has an overall nice community, it has been changed and shaped carefully over the years, and most importantly its not intrusive on you experience. Adding a subscription based degraded version of bungie.net was a bad idea. And CoD Elite – how much more cheesy could they have made that name?

    • dee says:

      It’s the sort of name that appeals to their target demographic.

      Like “Modern Warfar3″.

      Or Thipf.

    • subedii says:

      Yeah the Halo community / Waypoint stuff is what I first thought of as well when I saw the video.

      Except Bungie has been doing all that for free. And PC side as well. Groups? Clans? Stats? I mean, all this stuff was already out there. Hardcore Battlefield players always have their stats linked in their sig and such.

    • Delusibeta says:

      With the exception of Bungie Pro. ( http://www.bungie.net/Projects/BungiePro/default.aspx ) But then again, it only has limited features (increases the space on the File Share by 4 times and allows the uploading of five minutes of SD video onto their website per month) and is only $8 a year. Which is about the same as this is asking for a month.

  10. wcaypahwat says:

    Well, I don’t play CoD online, so This doesn’t affect me at all, Until it starts clogging my facebook feed. It’ll give me a good excuse to block/delete folk though.

    On a positive note, I did like the video.

    • Unaco says:

      ^This. Seems to be a lot of ‘snobs’ in the comments here. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to play it. Don’t use the service. It’s optional. I don’t happen to like StarCraft, and it’s inane mouse clicking and the way it’s turned into a test of twitch skills and build order, rather than any tactics/strategy… But I don’t rail against it and BattleNet whenever I see mention of them.

      COD/MW might not be the most noble, the most respectable, the most high brow of franchises… but they must be doing something right, because they keep selling so many copies. Face it… a large, large number of people really like the franchise, they like their manshoots like COD. I don’t think we should show them disdain for their choice in video game.

    • rivalin says:

      Snob is just another way of describing someone who doesn’t accept mediocrity and aspires to something better. And frankly if Activision is successful with these practices it does affect everyone, so you can’t just choose to ignore it unless you don’t care about what happens to gaming in general. When businesses are allowed to get away with these sorts of practices, others will adopt them too, and the industry will begin to hew towards gouging customers for services they used to get for free. I don’t want the Witcher 3 to have 20% of its budget diverted to “Witcher Web” where you “can upload epic vids of your boss battles to impress your friends” and “compare all your completion stats on a worldwide leader board”

      That’s where we’re heading if people keep saying “oh it’s nothing to do with me”

  11. Premium User Badge

    stahlwerk says:

    CoDs for the CoDgod.

  12. WMain00 says:

    Can’t honestly say i’m surprised Activision is doing this.

    The hilarious thing is that, given how much Activision is running the franchise into the ground (much like its other franchises), this service is likely only going to last maybe a couple of years. People will grow tired of constant repetitions of CoD much like they grew tired of Tony Hawk et al. Eventually they’ll stop playing and Activision will stop producing.

    After that I imagine Activision will probably whip Bungie harder into showing off whatever the next game from them is going to be.

    • Telke says:

      As far as I remember, Bungie’s contract with Activision is like the EA Partners program: activision has no control over bungie’s development, as long as bungie releases a set of games in a franchise over the next decade.

      which is good, because they’re quite a good dev. having studio control over their projects means we could see some nice stuff.

    • RCGT says:

      The spectre of CoD is the only thing that could make RPS readers speak kindly of anything Halo or Bungie-related.

      Avowed Halo fanboy myself, and yeah, all this CoD Elite nonsense is really Johnny-come-lately when compared to the consistent support Bungie has given the multiplayer community via Bungie.net, Halo Waypoint and the other innovations it brought (like being one of the first games to establish a “party” system, IIRC).

    • subedii says:

      Yeah I really hope that Bungie doesn’t get affected by all this. The community stuff they’ve provided to date has been pretty impressive.

      Of course, with regards to the core Halo franchise, that’s being run by MS now via 343 Industries, so goodness knows whether they aren’t going to try something similar when they see this.

      EDIT: @ RCGT: What’s wrong with Halo?

      I mean sure it’s not on PC, but frankly that’s a lot more to do with MS. In general I felt the earlier games were overhyped (as is the plot), but I’d always put the Halo franchise way above CoD in terms of gameplay.

    • RCGT says:

      Nothing wrong with Halo – quite the opposite, in fact – but it does seem to stick in the craw of RPS readers to praise the game, especially since before the advent of the Modern Warfare era, Halo attracted all the PC-gamer hate that CoD does today.

    • subedii says:

      That’s probably because everyone console-side kept heralding it as a “revolution” instead of, you know, just a good game.

      And I have no qualms in saying Halo 1 was a mediocre game, and the continuous copy pasting of level segments (which they even did some in Halo 2 as well) was an atrocious crime of game design.

    • Nick says:

      I wouldn’r call Halo 1 mediocre, I had a lot of fun with it when it came out. Halo 2 on the other hand was largely awful.

    • Premium User Badge

      Mo says:

      Halo did indeed have some awful copy/paste level design. However, maintain that it was a great (and innovative!) game mechanically.

  13. Farkeman says:

    steam much ?

  14. Jorum says:

    vague information that is going around is that will be less than services such as netflix (so less than $8.00).
    Also I feel it is telling of Activisions priorities that the first reports on this seem to be from Wall Street Journal than any gaming site/publication.

    Is there really a big market for this kind of service for COD? My impression has always been that “typical” COD player is not actually the hardcore clan type (or not to care enough to pay anyway).
    I suspect the adult gamers (esp xbox) will not be bothered, and the hordes of horrible 14 yr olds won’t have funds to pay for it.

  15. Premium User Badge

    HermitUK says:

    Does look rather similar to Bungie.net’s Halo stat tracking. Bungie’s extra monetization option was to get players to buy rendering time for their recorded videos, so if you wanted to upload any videos you’d made, you paid a little amount for the privilege. I expect something similar here is a given, but I expect this’ll be more in the monthly fee territory, rather than paying for what you need when you like.

    If I had to guess, anything that’s been in previous CoD games (clans, your own stat tracking, so on) will be free. Anything new (Leagues/competitions, checking other player’s stats) will cost monies. ALL the monies.

    Edit: Also, this sort of service is usually of much more interest to our console brethren, so I can see it doing well on that front.

  16. Dana says:

    Black Ops was the last Cod I have bought.

  17. Lobotomist says:

    WoW is dieing , slowly but surely.

    Guitar Hero is dead

    And they are rapidly loosing all support for COD franchise.

    Subscription for something that didnt require subscription before is very very unpopular move.

    Games have died over this : Hellgate , APB …

    Now we only need Battlefield 3 to seal the coffin ;)

    • MrMud says:

      All of the things you say are true except the last statement.
      If you believe that BF3 will outsell MW3 you are very much out of touch with the industry. Not that it would be great if it did, but it will NEVER happen.

    • gorgol says:

      Hmm, I just re-subbed to WoW. Its simply the best MMORPG out there atm. No competition. EvE doesn’t count because its still just feels like a spreadsheet. EvE is a MMORPMG, a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Meta Game.

      P.S. I almost got excited about htis article cos I thought it was talking about Elite a la David Braben :(

    • Lobotomist says:

      Fact that BF3 is simply much better than MW3 , combined with bad rep MW is getting – might be just enough to do the trick.

      As for WoW. I am not saying its on its last legs. But its decline has started.
      It may take some time. But one thing is sure , it will never reach the same heights again.

    • subedii says:

      Fact that BF3 is simply much better than MW3 , combined with bad rep MW is getting – might be just enough to do the trick.

      So what’s it like in the future? Have the mutant squidmen invaded yet? :P

      Not that I disagree that BF3’s multiplayer is probably going to be better, but its singleplayer just looks as if it’s trying to ape CoD just as much as everyone else’s is. And CoD has a much, much bigger presence than Battlefied does right now.

      If we’re talking bad rap, that was happening back around MW2. Personally I was expecting that it represented the zenith of the franchise, and that sales of BLOPS would be down compared to previous games, but apparently those were even bigger than MW2’s.

      Basically what I’m saying is these things can be hard to predict.

    • Pemptus says:

      @Lobotomist
      So you’ve played Battlefield 3 already? That’s a nice trick.

  18. Tony M says:

    I’m just not interested in COD style combat, I prefer Battlefield. But that ad was well done.

  19. Telke says:

    I know I’ll get slammed for this but: I kinda enjoy CoD games. It’s like going to see transformers with your mates – it’s a terrible plot, but big robots smash each other up, and there are explosions. So I’ll probably pick up mw3, because it’s a bit of light fun.
    And I can’t really fault Activision for charging for this – it’s a pretty solid business decision.
    Paying for this, though? probably not. unless anything previously free is now part of the sub, there doesn’t seem to be much point.

    • ManaTree says:

      As someone who loathes the modern warfare trend (I can only see it as a straight up money grab by Activision), I’d actually be okay with it existing, EXCEPT that it’s the dominant series in the games industry. The money is very proportionally towards Activision right now, and that’s just messed up.

  20. Batolemaeus says:

    Reading about all those first person console whatsits is like reading news from some alternate universe. It does not affect me, I don’t like these games and don’t play them. Nonetheless, it’s interesting to read about the ridiculousnesses (sp?!) of it all.

    Wsj calling MW3 a “hyper-realistic combat-simulation game” got a chuckle out of me though.

  21. YeOldeSnake says:

    Nointrest

  22. Vexing Vision says:

    I couldn’t care less about COD, but apparently we’re in the minority. A couple of billion flies can’t lie.

    That said, this is actually a valuable service, if I were into clans and stuff. And if its paid for a main presence for my clan/profile, why not, if the benefit is good. The features do sound really nice.

  23. CMaster says:

    Honestly, sounds like a perfectly good system. It doesn’t offer much that existing stuff like Steam doesn’t, but presumably it will be cross-platform and their support for the competitive side sounds like it could add something for players.

    However, what I thought was odd as that the video made playing the actual game look bad. Odd movement, ridiculous faces, constant spawn camping etc.

  24. D3xter says:

    And Kotick’s wish hath become reality: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509404575301231400042578.html
    WSJ: If you could snap your fingers, and instantly make one change in your company, what would it be, and why?

    Mr. Kotick: I would have Call of Duty be an online subscription service tomorrow. When you think about what the audience’s interests are and how you could really satisfy bigger audiences with more inspired, creative opportunities, I would love to see us have an online Call of Duty world. I think our players would just have so much of a more compelling experience.

    WSJ: Is that coming?

    Mr. Kotick: Hopefully.

    WSJ: Are the customers ready for it?

    Mr. Kotick: I think our audiences are clamoring for it. If you look at what they’re playing on Xbox Live today, we’ve had 1.7 billion hours of multiplayer play on Live. I think we could do a lot more to really satisfy the interests of the customers. I think we could create so many things, and make the game even more fun to play. We haven’t really had a chance to do that yet, so that would be my snap of the fingers.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      Mr. Kotick: I think our shareholders are clamoring for it. If you look at what the suckers playing on Xbox Live today, we’ve had 1.7 billion hours of multiplayer play on Live. I think we could charge a lot more to really satisfy the interests of the shareholders. I think we could sell so many things, and make the game even more expensive to play. We haven’t really had a chance to do that yet, so that would be my snap of the fingers.

  25. lethu says:

    Curse the day when video games got an industry. The first game was not made for money.

    • subedii says:

      Buh? Neither was the first film. Or the first recording. Nor was the first book I imagine.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      The first book (as we know them today) was probably a religious text so, that being the case, you probably could say it was written for money (as in give the priests some or you will suffer eternal damnation).

    • lethu says:

      @subedii, But you can see that the spirit behind video games has changed at least a bit (euphemism?) since the first ping pong game, right? What are you defending exactly anyway?

    • subedii says:

      I’m not. I’m wondering why you say that games shouldn’t have an “industry” any more than the other three, or that the first prototype game being “free” has anything to do with it.

      Games are made to make money. And “Pong” most certainly was, and made a lot. The first of what we would call a conventional videogame ever developed was IIRC, Space War (alhough there are earlier examples on things like CRT’s and such). And it was made more as a proof of concept.

      Games has been an industry for a long time before now, pretty much since personal computational devices became viable for home use. And devs developed some exceptional games during this whole time.

    • lethu says:

      @subedii, I must bow, I probably did not have enough sleep that’s why I said something this vague without developing enough. Actually I see the industry as a cause of the decline of video games, when money becomes the only goal and that developers cease being creative, it can be felt on the quality of games produced. Same for the movie industry and what happened with Hollywood, as well as in other industries. What I omitted however is that there remain industry members who are different, more artisan, like before, but the most brilliant of them have either gone or have turned into some greedy giant.

  26. Cradlejoe says:

    The trailer is pretty embarrassing to be honest.
    So that’s extra deep loathing from me.

  27. Gunrun says:

    Aaaand the trailers gone.

  28. Premium User Badge

    HermitUK says:

    Also, CoD elite is apparently going to be providing map packs. Wonder if they’ll actually have the balls to have a monthly fee to access DLC maps? :p

  29. Alec Meer says:

    Replacement trailer up.

  30. Mattressi says:

    I’m interested.
    Interested to see just how much deep loathing I have been stricken with.

  31. poop says:

    not merely contented with charging for map packs every three months activision are now adding subscriptions for the features that have been free in tf2 for years

    • tameimpala says:

      The narrator’s voice is hugely irritating. I imagine the sense of humour in the video appeals to the 12 year olds that play CoD, but not me sir, not me

  32. tlarn says:

    Well, at least the video was a fun watch. Nice pacing, good sense of humor.

  33. Fo says:

    At first I was like..LOL! Then I was like..Huh?..Then I was like..LOL!

  34. Zarunil says:

    But will it have Bookface, Twit and 4Chan integration? The 4Chan is only accessable for premium members, rite?

  35. Bungle says:

    That’s it??? This was their big announcement? “You can join clans and form communities.” Guess what, we’ve been doing that for two decades now. BEFORE Activision let us pay them for it, even.

  36. hamster says:

    Could be interesting but depends on what’s on offer. Perhaps a dedicated webpage/website for your clan? Dedicated chat channel? Dedicated voice channel? Dedicated clan server? (probably not). But yeah basically there’s alot they can offer – stuff that people are basically paying for already but is now handled by Activision so you get great economies of scale/bargaining power and all that (that is to say, lower prices). And for those that aren’t too into the competitive aspects of the game, the stuff is all optional anyway so no harm done.

    Well that’s what I hypothesize anyway. The subscription could also just be some fairly extraneous stuff that nobody really wants anyway in which case most people will just ignore it.

  37. McDan says:

    Thought they’d do something like this for even more money, the sellouts. Even if I still played the COD’s online I’d say no to this.

  38. deadstoned says:

    This isn’t Plan B this is Plan C. Plan A milk franchise with DLC + inflated RRP. Plan B was to dispose of the original creators as not to pay them millions in royalties. Plan C is the turbo charged subscription milking machine that we have here. Great….

  39. Hatsworth says:

    Frankly I hope they manage to kill CoD like they did Guitar Hero. Unlikely, but stuff like this will help. Just keep this crap away from Starcraft 2 which already has you buy multiple copies of the game to make accounts play on different servers.

    Edit:
    http://wellplayed.org/forum/114/thread/3805016/show
    “As far as Battle.net improvements, one primary focus will be on getting the StarCraft Marketplace up and running at some point around the launch of Heart of the Swarm.”
    Ugh.

  40. Premium User Badge

    Nero says:

    I pretty much stopped caring about anything Call of Duty related after MW, though I played it quite a bit it’s not really a great game and perks and shit has spread into so many other titles that I pretty much loathe the series. But this doesn’t matter since loads of people will by the next CoD game and then months after complain that it’s shit and then buy the next game and so on and so on. Game on!

  41. Radiant says:

    You guys are hatters.

    This looks really fun for the people who are into COD.

    *you wear hats.

  42. Spiny says:

    BLOPS has killed it for me really (Yes I know it’s Treyarch). Still.

    “Modern Warfar3″?

    P|-|u|< Th47

  43. 8-bit says:

    Am I missing something here, is this a joke? that video looks like one of those Garry’s Mod comedy things.

  44. Michael Hoss says:

    now… that showed us.

    actually it showed us that Modern Warfare 3 still looks like Modern Warfare 1 still looks like a PS2-Shooter. Oh wait. Elite? Who cares?

  45. Davee says:

    That’s vid was actually pretty funny. Didn’t expect that.

    My interest for new CoD games still remains at the bottom of the sea however. They’ve just been the same, same all over – but different (as in a few differing weapons and locations, additional DING DING LEVEL UP and so on).

  46. Dworgi says:

    Strange. Isn’t CoD rated Mature? Yet that’s clearly marketed at teenagers living at home.

  47. Zern says:

    They only managed to fit one number into “ELIT3″. This worries me a great deal.

  48. Premium User Badge

    Daiv says:

    That skull in the logo looks scared, rather than terrifying.

  49. G_Man_007 says:

    I’ll take the three beers thanks.

  50. Generic Monk says:

    I haven’t paid for a CoD game since CoD4, mostly because it degenerated into releasing the same game over and over again. I don’t understand why people will pay through the nose for a) the horribly overpriced game, b) the horribly overpriced, contentless map packs, and now c) this crap. At the very least it should be free, I balk at the idea of even paying for xbox live.

    • Outsider says:

      I haven’t paid for a CoD game since CoD4, mostly because it degenerated into releasing the same game over and over again.

      Still enough interest to pirate it though?

      I don’t think you’re qualified to complain about the content of games you steal.