The future of Call Of Duty Zombies?

[Stop Mocking Me0]

You can argue with it all you want, but it's not a matter of what they've done in the past, it's a matter of business. 

 

You don't beat the five-month-dead-horse, that's all I'm discussing on the matter. 

[DeathBringerZen]

You don't beat the five-month-dead-horse, that's all I'm discussing on the matter. 

 

Plenty of other games, like Borderlands 2 get DLC over a year after release, so you cannot just assume that just because a game has not seen any proper action in months that it suddenly become improbable.

 

I also think your argument for it being non-profitable is flawed. Even if MP fans abandoned their copies of BO2, a zombie only DLC would only appeal to the zombie side of the community anyway, and almost 99% of that community will have retained their game. 3arc DLC drops are mostly profited from the zombie community anyway, so it would still be very lucrative for them if they DID go ahead and release a zombie only DLC drop.

 

With that being said, I do agree that there is very little (if any) chance of a DLC 5!

[Rissole25]

I don't think there will be a DLC 5. But micro-DLC like Nuketown Zombies was? Sure, it could happen.

[Stop Mocking Me0]

 

You don't beat the five-month-dead-horse, that's all I'm discussing on the matter. 

 

Plenty of other games, like Borderlands 2 get DLC over a year after release, so you cannot just assume that just because a game has not seen any proper action in months that it suddenly become improbable.

 

I also think your argument for it being non-profitable is flawed. Even if MP fans abandoned their copies of BO2, a zombie only DLC would only appeal to the zombie side of the community anyway, and almost 99% of that community will have retained their game. 3arc DLC drops are mostly profited from the zombie community anyway, so it would still be very lucrative for them if they DID go ahead and release a zombie only DLC drop.

 

With that being said, I do agree that there is very little (if any) chance of a DLC 5!

 

Why do I even bother arguing if people are just going to come in, tell me my reasoning is worthless, and then argue for my exact point?

 

Honestly, it's hypocritical and somewhat rude… 

"Yes, mocking is flawed, and unjust because he is giving reasons to why dlc will not be dropped, but I'm very confident DLC will not be dropped"

 

 

where's your reasoning? 

[Dahniska]

You don't beat the five-month-dead-horse, that's all I'm discussing on the matter.

 

Plenty of other games, like Borderlands 2 get DLC over a year after release, so you cannot just assume that just because a game has not seen any proper action in months that it suddenly become improbable.

 

I also think your argument for it being non-profitable is flawed. Even if MP fans abandoned their copies of BO2, a zombie only DLC would only appeal to the zombie side of the community anyway, and almost 99% of that community will have retained their game. 3arc DLC drops are mostly profited from the zombie community anyway, so it would still be very lucrative for them if they DID go ahead and release a zombie only DLC drop.-

 

With that being said, I do agree that there is very little (if any) chance of a DLC 5!

Why do I even bother arguing if people are just going to come in, tell me my reasoning is worthless, and then argue for my exact point?

 

Honestly, it's hypocritical and somewhat rude… 

"Yes, mocking is flawed, and unjust because he is giving reasons to why dlc will not be dropped, but I'm very confident DLC will not be dropped"

 

 

where's your reasoning?

I can't speak for him, but I think I can answer your question. Don't take this wrong. I'm trying to help you.

Often I see you post things. Sometimes your conclusions are good, sometimes not. But most of the time I don't see you following a good (logical) line of reasoning to reach said conclusion. That is what he is not agreeing with you about.

For people to agree with you (in general) you must understand what you are talking about, use good sources of data and draw logical conclusions from them to support your point. I will show you what I mean with an example.

Statement: "The Sliquifier is the best gun in Die Rise."

The statement is true. Now someone asks you why. You say: "Because having zombies die with a purple effect is just way too cool."

Right there is the problem. All the players with experience will agree with your final conclusion but not with the path you took to get there.

To remedy this you need to have a logical reason that makes sense to back up your statement. So instead of talking about the color purple, you say this: "It's the best because it can kill in 1 hit all the way past Round 100, and you can chain its effect for unlimited kills per shot."

Now you just made yourself look a lot smarter and far less people will disagree with you. From now on, try doing this more and you will be less likely to have someone disagree with you.

Hopefully this helps you. I really do hope it does! I feel like if you work on this it will improve the quality of your posts and your logic a lot.

[DeathBringerZen]

where's your reasoning? 

 

 

My reasoning is that your argument is flawed... plain and simple. You are claiming that there is no profit to be made from a zombie only DLC, when you are clearly wrong. They could easily make money from it. Ghosts is a flop, and the zombie community has largely shunned Extinction. There is still a high volume of players playing BO1 & BO2 zombies across all 3 main platforms, and that figure is enough to cut a decent profit.

 

You are the one being rude and arrogant here, not me. You are unwilling to listen to other peoples reasonings, and claim your own to be solid, when it is not.

[Stop Mocking Me0]

 

where's your reasoning? 

 

 

My reasoning is that your argument is flawed... plain and simple. You are claiming that there is no profit to be made from a zombie only DLC, when you are clearly wrong. They could easily make money from it. Ghosts is a flop, and the zombie community has largely shunned Extinction. There is still a high volume of players playing BO1 & BO2 zombies across all 3 main platforms, and that figure is enough to cut a decent profit.

 

You are the one being rude and arrogant here, not me. You are unwilling to listen to other peoples reasonings, and claim your own to be solid, when it is not.

 

I honestly don't give a damn about other people's reasonings if they don't have anything concrete. No one has ever listened to me so bugger all if anyone wants me to listen to them without something solid. 

 

Look at your own reasoning:

"Ghost is a flop"-Opinionated, personally I thought its been the best, and defiantly the most innovative, IFW title sense MW2. 

 

"Much of the zombies community has largely shunned Extinction"- again, hasty generalization formed from your own judgement, and therefore, flawed, in fact I have hypothesized many times about a link between zombies and extinction. 

 

"You are clearly wrong" again, my arguments have reasoning based off of previous patterns of earlier trayarch games, there is more backing here then "people still play zombies"-People still play half life, portal 2, and TF2, but do you see any new dlc being launched for them? 

 

 

To come in, state that I am wrong, and then argue for the exact same point I just had with less evidence solves nothing and is quite rude to me. 

[The Clay Bird]

 

 

where's your reasoning? 

 

 

My reasoning is that your argument is flawed... plain and simple. You are claiming that there is no profit to be made from a zombie only DLC, when you are clearly wrong. They could easily make money from it. Ghosts is a flop, and the zombie community has largely shunned Extinction. There is still a high volume of players playing BO1 & BO2 zombies across all 3 main platforms, and that figure is enough to cut a decent profit.

 

You are the one being rude and arrogant here, not me. You are unwilling to listen to other peoples reasonings, and claim your own to be solid, when it is not.

 

I honestly don't give a damn about other people's reasonings if they don't have anything concrete. No one has ever listened to me so bugger all if anyone wants me to listen to them without something solid. 

 

Look at your own reasoning:

"Ghost is a flop"-Opinionated, personally I thought its been the best, and defiantly the most innovative, IFW title sense MW2. 

 

"Much of the zombies community has largely shunned Extinction"- again, hasty generalization formed from your own judgement, and therefore, flawed, in fact I have hypothesized many times about a link between zombies and extinction. 

 

"You are clearly wrong" again, my arguments have reasoning based off of previous patterns of earlier trayarch games, there is more backing here then "people still play zombies"-People still play half life, portal 2, and TF2, but do you see any new dlc being launched for them? 

 

 

To come in, state that I am wrong, and then argue for the exact same point I just had with less evidence solves nothing and is quite rude to me. 

 

 

 

I think the misinterpretation here is that you feel he is stating "ghosts is a flop" and "extinction isn't very popular especially among zombies players" as just opinions meaning he doesn't like the game.  This i don't believe was the intent, and feel free to correct me if i'm wrong DBZ, but from a numbers standpoint, Ghosts is definitely not as popular as past games.

 

For example.  I specifically remember after DLC drops for BO2, there being between 70,000-100,00 on zombies alone, and if i remember correctly, 500,000-600,000 on multiplayer? (unless that totals all including zombies, which i dont think it does.  )

 

Anyway I was on thursday evening the day of DLC 2 release and there were barely over 150,000 online on xbox360 thats extinction squads and mp combined.

 

Although I really enjoy ghosts mp (the 25% of the time that it isn't unbearably laggy) the nubers seem to support that by and large cod fans are not playing ghosts like they did BO2.

 

Combine this data with BO2 almost 18 months after release, and its numbers are equal to ghosts and sometimes even higher (for xbox360 vs. 360 and 1 combined for ghosts) seem to support that there still may be an audience for DLC on BO2.

 

Again, this doesn't mean they will, but when executives at Activision see that their sales of DLC are not meeting projected profit numbers, it is entirely logical that they may come to Treyarch asking them to develop some content for BO2 to try and profit off those hundreds of thousands of us that are still playing BO2.

 

Now i can't speak for PS3 or PC numbers, but assuming they are similar as they normally are, that is the evidence that Ghosts just is not as popular as past CoD's, at least post original release.

 

All this to say I'm not saying you're wrong in the least.  There are a variety of facts supporting that dlc for BO2 is done, i mean just look at the past 5 cod's, following roughly the same DLC schedule

 

Difference is this year, the current COD is experiencing sagging sales numbers and much less volume of players than in the past, so even though the past would indicate we are done, we can't rule out a shift in the paradigm for how DLC is released for COD

 

 

 

let's all hug now

[DeathBringerZen]

I honestly don't give a damn about other people's reasonings if they don't have anything concrete. No one has ever listened to me so bugger all if anyone wants me to listen to them without something solid. 

 

Look at your own reasoning:

"Ghost is a flop"-Opinionated, personally I thought its been the best, and defiantly the most innovative, IFW title sense MW2. 

 

"Much of the zombies community has largely shunned Extinction"- again, hasty generalization formed from your own judgement, and therefore, flawed, in fact I have hypothesized many times about a link between zombies and extinction. 

 

"You are clearly wrong" again, my arguments have reasoning based off of previous patterns of earlier trayarch games, there is more backing here then "people still play zombies"-People still play half life, portal 2, and TF2, but do you see any new dlc being launched for them? 

 

 

To come in, state that I am wrong, and then argue for the exact same point I just had with less evidence solves nothing and is quite rude to me. 

 

 

My opinion on Ghosts being a flop is down to statistics. There has been, on numerous occasions, around double the amount of people playng BO2 online than Ghosts. The huge lack of coverage across the main Youtubers for Ghosts. The lack of passion or excitement about the game across most of the forums.

 

My opinion on most of the zombie community shunning Extinction is based on a number of reasons. The lack of people who post within zombie sections of forums also posting on Extinction forums, or the fact that the number of people playing Extinction is quite low, especially when compared to zombies. Also from general word of mouth when I converse with people across several forums. I accept though that this is not concrete evidence.

 

The fact that people still play zombies IS a selling point, and PROOF that they can still make money from it. Your argument that people still play HL2 is your own condtridiction, seeing as Valve continued to make money from that game YEARS later!

 

If you genuinely think they could not make enough money from an all new, all zombie DLC for Black Ops 2 even after 5+ month of abandonment, the you are wrong! My argument is that the numbers are still high enough to cut a decent enough profit, and I think I am right.

 

Still, we will never be able to prove the point either way as it will not happen. There will be no DLC 5, so no point in arguing about it.

[83457]

Um, I'm just going to inject some reality here.

I have played bo2 like mad, I've played ghosts like mad.

I once saw bo2 up to 140,000 players, never anywhere near half a million, that's just b.s. Both rise and fall. I'm as surprised as most that Trollarch made a decent cod game for once. Once.

Currently on a boring Monday night, both are hovering around 125,000 with ghosts slightly higher and about 10,000 playing zombies.

Both have great multiplayer.

Cod fans generally ignore dlc, not because it sucks, but because they only want to vote for the same 3 maps anyway, so why buy dlc in their minds?

BO2 dlc sold much more due to zombie fans.

I'm not getting involved in the rest of these arguments.

[TEX]

bo2 was at 500k-700k during release and dlc 1

[DeathBringerZen]

I once saw bo2 up to 140,000 players, never anywhere near half a million, that's just b.s. Both rise and fall. I'm as surprised as most that Trollarch made a decent cod game for once. Once.

 

I did say "on occasion", not regularly. Still, I am only pointing out that, although it sold well, a lot of people either traded in Ghost or stopped playing it. Activision have done everything to try and get sales, including free weekends, heavy discounts and mass promotion and it is not working.

 

Still, I am not trying to start arguments about which is better. You seem to have a dislike for earlier Treyarch MP titles, where as I prefer them to IW's. It is all a matter of opinion at the end of the day. I personally think MW2 was just out done by BO1 MP. WaW MP was also really well done.

 

My opinion on the OP, which is supported by statistics is that a zombie only DLC or Micro Transactions could still cut a profit even after 5+ months. I think it could because numbers for zombies is strong enough. If 50,000 people paid $5 a map, or $20 for a bundle, that would be $1,000,000 return. I am sure it would not cost even half that to produce some reskinned maps.

 

The reason why I don't think it will happen, and why it didn't happen in the first place is because zombies moved to the MP engine, and that would mean they would need to remake the maps from scratch. It would have took too much time, and still would.

[Stop Mocking Me0]

If there's no point in arguing about it please feel free to explain why you would interrupt my reasoning, degrade what I've said, and then say the same thing. 

 

 

So, to recap, your facts are flawed, your motivation is flawed, and you still argue with me, not that I'm wrong, you've stated before that there's not going to be a 5th-DLC, so why do you continue to bicker? 

 

What this whole situation boils down to is: you, without any backing, are trying to argue against my statement, which has backing, however you completely agree with my point.  You've become a Paradox. 

 

 

 

 

Oh and Dahniska I seem to have missed you earlier: I don't fallow a line of reason. (It's more of a big ball of wobbly-wobbly trans-diminsional stuff in patterns. ) Who can in this kind of forum? One must always think outside the box, needless things get set in motion. 

[DeathBringerZen]

If there's no point in arguing about it please feel free to explain why you would interrupt my reasoning, degrade what I've said, and then say the same thing

 

My point, as I have clearly stated several times already, is that there is profit to be made if they DID go and release another DLC when you claimed there is not.

 

I am not trying to degrade you in any way, so my apologies if it seemed that way. When I said your statement was "flawed", it was because I genuinely felt it was, in terms of the fact that you seemed to think it was not profitable for them to release DLC at this point in time.

 

I was NOT saying you are flawed as an individual.

[Stop Mocking Me0]

How am I defensive?  You were being rude. I called you on it, then you begin calling me arrogant ect. I've been analytical sense. 

 

And for activation as a whole I still don't see it to be profitable to make a dlc of black ops now, nor likely to actually happen. And as much as you claim that more people play black ops then ghosts, that still does not mean that a black ops DLC would be more beneficial then a ghosts DLC for multiple reasons. 

[MegaAfroMan]

What are the multiple reasons?

Sorry Mocking Me, but you seem to be getting too invested into this.

I agree with the logic that a DLC would be profitable, but, I don't think it would be profitable enough for Activision to do so. So therefore it is not likely.

I honestly recommend you take a breather for a 24 hour period before responding to this.

I understand how much you want activity focused towards future zombies, but you've been quite pushy about telling people "NO you don't want to have new BO2 zombies DLC" Whenever someone talks about new DLC 5, or microtransactions.

Clearly people want it. In my town of 50K people, I can personally account for at least 50 people who would definitely buy day one any new zombies content for BO2. Imagining 50,000 across the globe buying content is not that far fetched. You have to remember for DLC, fees to the networks, and the cost of paying the employees is the only noticable expenses.

They don't need to aquire raw materials for cost.

But anywho, you need to accept that people want it, and it is their right to want it.

No one here is saying it will happen. So you don't need to argue that.

A few people think it should happen, and quite frankly I've seen just as many good reasons from them, as I have from you.

[DeathBringerZen]

How am I defensive?  You were being rude. I called you on it, then you begin calling me arrogant ect. I've been analytical sense.

 

As Mega said, it is your overly aggressive responses to people some times, and especially when it is on a matter that you are passionate about, like DLC 5. I have edited my post though as I don't really want to be having this arguement.

 

I see what you are saying on the subject, and my stance is that I don't agree. That does not mean I am looking for a fight. I just feel that there is enough people who play zombies regularly to warrant a profit in any new maps that dropped, whether it be via micro transactions or a bundle.

 

This would be even more evident now that we have an extended off-season, and would actually make sense, but I just don't see it happening. If it was going to happen, they would have tested the water months ago with a remake of Verruckt or something and tried it as a micro transaction to see how well it sold, but that does not mean it would not sell now, just because we are a few month on... just that from a marketing stance, you would expect them to do it earlier in the games life span.

 

Going back to one of my original posts... Borderlands 2 got a DLC drop nearly 2 years after it released and it sold in healthy numbers. I know there is probably a lot more people playing Borderlands 2 than zombies, but it is testiment to how well a DLC can sell long after the original title was released.

 

Still, apologies again. I was not looking to bash you.

[Stop Mocking Me0]

Apology accepted DBZ, 

 

 

And MAM: 1: Ghost DLC is just as important as COD dlc, it's only fair for them to have their season and for trayarch to have theirs. How would we feel if a surprise extinction dlc was released three hours before the next trayarch game? 

 

2: Ghost is next-gen as well as current gen. right now, Bo2 is not. Ghost requires more activation staff for dlc for both types of consoles. 

 

3: Ghosts, like you have said, is not selling as well as BO2, is it fair to take away even more of their would-be DLC buyers to promote another zombie DLC? 

 

 

 

And up til this point If I remember, Ive been all for micro-transaction maps. But now that the game is over I side differently. 

 

And yes, I do support FUTURE zombies, but unlikely delayed dlc of presumably remake maps or smaller nuketown-esqe maps does not seem to be, ah, innovative. There's a fine line between trying to improve ones zombie experience and refusing to want to move on. 

 

And my last point: Who else is going to try to establish this point? Far as I can see, I'm simply supporting my side of an argument the best I can. I have not been aggressive nor used aggressive language, I have not tried to instigate anything, I have simply defended my point. Is that not what one does on a forum? Support their ideas?  

[The Clay Bird]

Just going to inject some concrete facts into this discussion as by and large it has been guesstimates and heresay:

 

This is from around 6:00 pm central time last night. again remembering this is only 5 days after DLC drop.

Ghosts: keep in mind this includes MP, Extinction, Squads, the whole thing

 

Now here's BO2 multiplayer

 

and zombies

 

 

so on xbox 360 counting everything together there were 163061 on bo2 and 131384 on ghosts for a difference of 31677

 

now factor in the xbox one players which i've heard is normally in the 20k - 25k range they are fairly similar, but still more players on BO2.  And that's 4 days after a map pack release.

 

Now perhaps zombies is the sole reason (personally i dont think so) that BO2 had so many more players around DLC times, but still to whomever stated 140k was the average number of MP on BO2 most of the time, I totally disagree.  As i stated earlier, during the main season for BO2 that number was normally 300k - 400k  of course i can't go back in time and prove that, but i am certain of it.

 

Now here's another little tidbit I found yesterday

 

dropping the price of ghosts to $20??   Insane.

 

 

So I post all this only to support that at this point, it may actually make sense for activision to switch things up here.  I use the example of Crystal Pepsi.  Most of you are probably too young to remember Crystal Pepsi. It was a clear Cola that Pepsi came out with i believe in the late 80's or early 90's.  It was  super popular for a couple of months, but once the newness wore off and people realized it was actually terrible tasting compared to regular pepsi, it was discontinued and pepsi went other directions.

 

So it certainly is not crazy to think that even though Ghosts will continue to get their 4 DLC packs to satisfy promises to season pass holders, it is certainly feasable that due to low sales, they may try and go another direction to make up some of that lost revenue, whether that be by a map pack, or microtransactions

 

 

Thanks for reading, i love you guys

 

 

:edit: to Stop mocking me0, I dont think that releasing new material for BO2 would in any way take away from the effort that will be put into the next treyarch cod.  I think i've mentioned it before that they could take feedback from any new material that is released into consideration when working on 2015 cod zombies as well.  Just to say i dont think it would be such a terrible thing for more content to be released in terms of the next CoD zombies being worse because of it

[DeathBringerZen]

^This is exactly the point I was trying to make, and the stat's don't lie. I did not provide the supporting evidence you did though Clay, so thanks for the support on it.

 

It is pretty well known that Ghosts has been a poor release in the CoD franchise, and it has also been noted by Activision themselves. DLC sales have also been drastically lower than expected, so they have tried several tactics to boost sales, including free weekends, massive reductions and mass advertising to attempt to boost sales. I have also noted a lot of Youtubers slate the game and also refuse to cover Extinction.

 

I completely agree with you that this could potentially be seen as a good time to try and make some money off the people who have stuck by Black Ops 2 instead. The camo drops could have been them testing the water on the MP end. They could also have a different developer do maps for zombies. Raven Software made Kino after all, and that is one of the most successful maps in the series.

 

Statistics aside, my main point is that I fully believe that money could still be made from micro transaction maps. Remakes (possibly re-themed) versions of WaW maps similar to those on CoD:Online could be welcomed. Sure they are not exactly new to us, but brand new maps would require a lot more time due to having to try and incorporate a storyline and most likely an EE. Remakes seems like the quickest and easiest way, and I think they thought along those lines originally anyway when they included all the previous maps loading screens in the BO2 files.

 

It still seems unlikely, but we all know how money hungry Activision actually are, and if they cannot boost sales for Ghosts, who knows.

[The Clay Bird]

Right, and I think we are all in agreement that it is still pretty unlikely as it would be a pretty big risk on Activisions part to stray from what up til now has been a very successful strategy.

 

I also agree that revamps of past maps would be the most likely as it would have the least cost i assume.  could keep the same EE's in those maps but include new rewards, like a perma perks reward for the ascension EE, or other creative things. I would think it would be centered around fun, rather than storyline advancement or leaderboards.  And in fact, there still are a lot of people that BO2 and tranzit was their first zombies experience, and may not have ever played BO1.

 

I think they'll see how the sales numbers from the first couple weeks or month of ghosts DLC2 sales goes, and then evaluate from there

[83457]

I once saw bo2 up to 140,000 players, never anywhere near half a million, that's just b.s. Both rise and fall. I'm as surprised as most that Trollarch made a decent cod game for once. Once.

I did say "on occasion", not regularly. Still, I am only pointing out that, although it sold well, a lot of people either traded in Ghost or stopped playing it. Activision have done everything to try and get sales, including free weekends, heavy discounts and mass promotion and it is not working.

Still, I am not trying to start arguments about which is better. You seem to have a dislike for earlier Treyarch MP titles, where as I prefer them to IW's. It is all a matter of opinion at the end of the day. I personally think MW2 was just out done by BO1 MP. WaW MP was also really well done.

My opinion on the OP, which is supported by statistics is that a zombie only DLC or Micro Transactions could still cut a profit even after 5+ months. I think it could because numbers for zombies is strong enough. If 50,000 people paid $5 a map, or $20 for a bundle, that would be $1,000,000 return. I am sure it would not cost even half that to produce some reskinned maps.

The reason why I don't think it will happen, and why it didn't happen in the first place is because zombies moved to the MP engine, and that would mean they would need to remake the maps from scratch. It would have took too much time, and still would. Sorry. Did mean to sound dicky.

I don't actually have numbers of highest amounts of players, et cetera, so i should not have even opined.

How you can say bo1 trumped mw2 is mind boggling. But let's not get into it.

But i do have a comment on Ghosts: one reason why it's not as popular, in my opinion, is that the cod mp players who would like this game have been ignored since mw2. Bo1 got rid of maps and replaced them with arenas. Mw3 came out with more arenas instead of maps. Bo2, again, arenas full of invisible barriers where you spawn looking at someone, or someone is looking at you. Playing the map and map knowledge died with mw2. Now idiocy ward takes a stab at real maps again, but that demographic gave up on cod years ago. Cod has been attracting the 'spawn in a box' nuketown/firing range crowd.

I'm predicting that ghosts popularity will grow as the word gets out that this isn't another arena shooter, that you have to actually move or camp to get kills. Map knowledge and playing the map are back.

To keep it in perspective, i loved bo2 despite the arena maps, constant spawn kills. I ran around full speed shooting whatever moves, but give me stealthy, more realistic ghosts battles any day.

Bo2 and ghosts both have good guns, good perks, decent functionality, but ghosts beat up bo2s maps, pantsed them, and took their lunch money. And we all applauded.

Anyway, the future of codz is Safeguard.

(innocent whistling)

I'll just leave now...

Edited April 8, 2014 by 83457

[DeathBringerZen]

Sorry. Did mean to sound dicky.

How you can say bo1 trumped mw2 is mind boggling. But let's not get into it.

 

 

No, I am sorry. I noticed how my reply could be percieved as if I thought that, but I really didn't. It is hard sometimes to post on forums without seeming to come across wrong.

 

I only think BO1 trumped MW2 because it, as you said tried to make maps a little different, and more arena like. MW2 is the game I played more MP on than any, and every map was awesome, but when BO1 came out it had much larger, open maps that you could use multiple strategies on. Sure the noobs ruined the style of play eventually, but for the first few months the MP was amazing to play on, and in my honest opinion, just edged out MW2.

 

Since then, I feel that MW3, BO2 and Ghosts have all had terrible MP. I know not everyone will agree with that though. I also felt that reskinning old "fan favorites" was a desperate and weak move in my opinion. MP died with BO1 for me. It was the last great MP game.

 

Still, I fully understand you and many others will consider MW2 to be much better than BO1, but I appreciated the different route they took (at first).

[PINNAZ]

@ Clay.

I haven't really been on Xbox live lately to notice what are the numbers during "Australian Peak Time". I might have to get back to you on that.

I have noticed however the PC players playing Zombies can range from as little as 100 to 700 (the maximum I've seen lately).

The Future of COD Zombies will be on next gen & until the next Zombies game, that will be when I update my console. I have owned every COD game from the Original through to BOII (Xbox & PC). Ghosts is the only COD game I have not bought. And yes, I probably will buy the next Zombies game regardless. I just want some semi-real-life story involved to make it interesting again.