Black Ops 2 – No More Weapon DLC, Treyarch Confirms

While Black Ops 2 developers Treyarch originally labelled the Peacekeeper SMG Revolution DLC weapon a “one time offering,”  the studio has once again confirmed on twitter that forthcoming DLC would not introduce new weaponry.


Spotted by our friends over at CI, the statement follows in the wake of the recent reveal of Black Ops 2’s upcoming Uprising DLC, which will include four new multiplayer maps, a new zombies experience, but no new multiplayer weapon. Previous weapon DLC worked favorably in the eyes of the players, and so it’s understandable that it might have been expected for subsequent DLC.

Last year, Infinity Ward executive producer commented on the lack of weapon DLC for Modern Warfare 3, saying, “the main issue is RAM. All of the weapons, characters, models, textures, and geo have to live in RAM. There is only 512 [MB] on the consoles. The problem then is adding weapons adds memory, and there isn’t much or any left.”

It might be the case that Black Ops 2 initially had the room, but no longer does.

What do you think? Did weapon DLC work out in Revolution? Are you bummed Black Ops 2 won’t be getting any more multiplayer weapons?

  • TachyonicPack


  • well that blows…its keep the game new and fresh a little bit more then just some reskined old maps

  • No more gun “DLC” hey. They never said no “gun personalization packs” though.

    • shredder


  • maskedrider

    That’s a lie look at dlc weapons for bf3

  • brothersinarms

    Preemptive strike.
    Press Ctr+A to copy all text in quotes “Hah!, BF DLC has tons of weapons I can muck around with”. Type a name in pick a name and email address. Press Ctrl+V to paste the copied text above.

    • At 70+ weapons, I want to say BF3 has the largest array of any military FPS(I said Military so no talk of Borderlands) on console as far as I know, I could be wrong. I doubt any military shooter has supassed Combat Arms ever expanding arsenal of over 300+ weapons, shooters need to aspire to do that.

      • Katana67

        They still have some work to do with their weapons though… Hopefully they’ll both make them look better in BF4, be more fair with attachments (i.e. ludicrous inclusion of red-dots on sniper rifles) and make them perform better (i.e. No random spread inside 500m, more damage per shot overall, etc.)

        Sure, BF3 has a ton of weapons… but it doesn’t really mean anything if they don’t drop people. CoD’s CQC mechanic is without question (thanks to the outdated hitscanning) better than BF3. BF3’s shooting mechanic is great at range for some weapons (Sniper Rifles and supported LMG’s) but horrible past 100m for assault rifles, which is nuts. CQC just isn’t good in BF3, I’m sorry… people don’t drop fast enough and require entirely too many rounds to put down even on Hardcore.

        It’s a symptom of Halo Reach, oddly enough. In that no matter how much of an advantage you have tactically, if you happen upon a group of three or more enemy players… nine times out of ten you’ll kill one and the others will turn around and blow you away simply because you cannot inflict enough damage fast enough with one magazine.

        • DarthDiggler

          @abc0b90f10edcaeb7e6797303630405b:disqus I don’t have issues dropping people in BF3, thanks to dedicated servers which know where all the bullets are at all times.

          COD if you have a crappy host it can kill your KDR.

          The fact is at the end of the day, you are at the mercy of whatever Host you are assigned to on COD. In my experience about 50%+ of them suck. I have played every COD except for MW3 and every one ships with the same shitty ass netcode.

          • Katana67

            I don’t have trouble dropping people either, I’ve adapted to BF3. But, I mean… in CoD… people die when you shoot them. There’s no running off with 2% health, you’re either dead or you’re not. BF3, not so much. Past 50m, if you don’t have a supported weapon or sniper rifle… you’re SOL 90% of the time. Which is insane. Even then, inside 50m… it still takes half a mag to hit (because of the silly “random spread”).

            It is hard to actually describe the difference in a sentence other than “In CoD, people die when you shoot”. People die quicker, it’s just that simple. Attribute it to whatever… hitscanning, lower overall health, higher damage per round. You don’t have to pump them full of lead for someone to die, whereas in Battlefield… you’re gonna’ have to expend at least half a mag to take someone down if you’re accurate.

            Like I said as well, if you come across a squad facing away from you… you’re gonna’ die. It’s just a matter of how many of those squadmates are you going to take with you before they kill you. One cannot put out enough damage with one magazine of your average assault rifle to accomplish this feat. Which is also insane. You cannot exploit a distinct tactical advantage, simply because your weapon does not deal out enough damage.

            I wasn’t citing “connection issues” so much as I was just the general failings of the mechanic itself. Meaning random spread completely divorced from your reticle and recoil pattern (i.e. not having a zeroed weapon). Rounds still travel far too slow as well, coupled with the idiotic inclination DICE had to make -every- round a tracer.

            I’m of course speaking generally and within the providence of my own experience.

            • DarthDiggler


              In COD it all depends on your host, so you can’t really say what you are saying with any accuracy because those conditions will likely change the next match. I can tell you that more often than not I have to empty an entire clip into someone in COD because the Lag Compensation screws me with FIOS. Makes the game very un-fun to be punished for having a decent connection.

              I have heard people complain about BF3 and how much it takes to down someone, but I kind of like being the guy that gets away with 2% health, it makes the game play MUCH more interesting.

              That being said, I don’t see any issues in Hard Core.

              I would suggest that you try different weapons in BF3, they have made various changes over time and the changes have become less sweeping meaning they are much closer to a true balance.

            • Katana67

              So by that logic, one can never ever get a sense of a CoD game due to connection issues. I’ve had great connections and bad connections with CoD and that is my assessment of how it plays. If that doesn’t suit your “connection” based assessment, then I apologize. I’m also referring to CoD4 here, not any other CoD. Perhaps I should’ve detailed that.

              It doesn’t make the gameplay more interesting to get away with 2% health to me, it makes it more frustrating. One cannot function with 2% of anything, so why have it be an option? Saying it makes the gameplay “MUCH” more interesting is also silly to me, if anything it detracts from the precious “fast-paced flow” that DICE was touting as a reason for not having reasonable entry/exit animations for vehicles.

              It’s not an issue with the health system either, it’s an issue with the amount of damage/DPS/whatever weapons put out and how accurate they are (thus dictating how many rounds on average you get for a hit). I was just using that symptom as an example.

              BF3’s “random spread” is just that, an intangible variable outside of the player’s control. That detracts from gameplay in my mind, by putting the kill/my life in the hands of something that I have absolutely no control over. Not to mention it’s a ludicrous inclusion.

              I have played Battlefield 3 extensively, so a pseudo ad hominem is uncalled for. I base my assessments of the games after having tried them… tried different aspects… mastered different aspects… etc. 45 days of play time in CoD4 and 650h of BF3, which is irrelevant as I should not have to illustrate my ability to judge the two games. This should be self-explanatory and I am not questioning your ability to make an assessment, so I would assume the same courtesy.

              And, to clarify, it’s not DICE’s balance that I have an issue with. It’s that they’ve completely missed out on how to make a realistic, responsive, and fun shooting mechanic.

              I don’t have any figures, data points, or statistics to cite. Nor are they always relevant. So I will reiterate, I am speaking generally and as an expression of my individual experience (as are you).

            • DarthDiggler

              “Like I said as well, if you come across a squad facing away from you…
              you’re gonna’ die. It’s just a matter of how many of those squadmates
              are you going to take with you before they kill you. One cannot put out
              enough damage with one magazine of your average assault rifle to
              accomplish this feat. Which is also insane. You cannot exploit a
              distinct tactical advantage, simply because your weapon does not deal
              out enough damage.”

              If you just happen upon a squad (4 people) even if they are facing away from you I see no reason why you shouldn’t go down. This isn’t COD you aren’t going to get away with cheap 4 man kills without using a real tactical advantage (just finding 4 enemies is no tactical advantage).

              In Battlefield 3 if I happened on those 4 guys I would try to find a little cover before engaging. If I just “happened” on them I would likely pray and spray, but at that point I don’t deserve a 4 man kill. I generally carry C4s and I can get very creative in the ways I get multi-kills. 🙂

              “BF3’s “random spread” is just that, an intangible variable outside of
              the player’s control. That detracts from gameplay in my mind, by putting
              the kill/my life in the hands of something that I have absolutely no
              control over. Not to mention it’s a ludicrous inclusion.”

              I don’t encounter an issue with the Random Spread enough, but I don’t mind that there is a bit of a variable there. I think that helps with the approachability of the game. If COD had a random spread do you think Quick Scoping would be as effective? And who likes Quick Scoping beyond the asshole that is doing it?

              “And, to clarify, it’s not DICE’s balance that I have an issue with. It’s
              that they’ve completely missed out on how to make a realistic,
              responsive, and fun shooting mechanic.”

              So you think COD itchy twitch spin around like you are on bath salts is realistic? C’mon you may not prefer BF3, but I will not accept that you think the control scheme in COD is more realistic. It’s stupid unrealistic. Asshats turn around and kill you because they have their shit set to 11.

              The controls on the PS3 version were tightened up quite a bit. I don’t think that BF3 controls are unresponsive at all, they just respond differently (more realistically than COD IMHO). I have never seen a soldier do a ice skater ballerina spin but this is easily done in COD. 🙂

              When it comes to technology and what goes into making each game anyone who doesn’t give DICE the nod for the level of game they bring to the table is a foolish COD fanboy.

            • swiping someone once with a knife isn’t realistic either.. Throwing a tomahawk at a foot and killing your opponent isn’t realistic…If you want a true military experience go play ARMA. Trust me when I say if you truly know how to play BF3 you wont need to worry about someone getting away with 2%HEALTH

            • dropping people from a distance is easy once you learn to properly control your weapon recoil and burst properly

            • DarthDiggler

              Have you tried Hardcore? There are 2 flavors of Hardcore (with maps and without).

          • DanDustEmOff

            I agree with you on the netcode 100% but BF 3 isn’t perfect as it is Client side rather than Server side hit registration.

            • DarthDiggler


              Dude you are just full of logical fallacies. So what if the hit detection is client side. Everything is client side on COD and that freaking sucks donkey dongs. There is no rampant issues of Lag Compensation on BF3.

              I don’t even understand how COD can be played seriously by clans over the internet the connections are so piss poor.

            • DanDustEmOff

              Do you even read what im writing all i said was that BF wasn’t perfect as servers are client side which still depends on them playing on a good connection to the server. I know everything on CoD is done client side I will be the first to agree with you that the Lag sucks in CoD but that doesnt make the game totally unpayable when the connections are good then the game plays really well. Because of the way matchmaking works clans can play seriously if a load of your friends play and you live in the same region then one of you will normally get host and you can usually get good games. The Lag is the thorn in CoDs side and do i wish it was on servers? yes of course i do.

        • I can run with a bolt action sniper rifle on TDM and be in 1st place with a 2.00 KD and above. The only thing I think that needs to be improved is your skill and not the snipers

      • ARMA 2

  • moose

    LMAO 512MB of RAM?

    shared system memory too

    the bigger joke is the new consoles only have 8GB, which is entry level when compared to PC

    joke after joke

    • moose with mad cow

      We have seen a lot of these posts over the net, idiots who dared to know it all without even knowing the basics, 8GB GDDR5 (PS4) is not the same as 8GB DDR (PC).

      • nope but add to the minimum 8 gb ram most decent pc gamers have 2 or 3 or 4 or 6 gddr5 dedicated vram on the gpu

        • DarthDiggler


          I highly doubt more that there are that many 6GB graphics cards out there and you aren’t putting a 6GB graphics card in a $500 PC. 🙂 From what I see most

          Use some scale here when comparing consoles and PC’s if money was no object we would all be rocking high end PC’s to game with!

      • Blaine

        They’re using GDDR5 because it is SHARED memory (shared between CPU and GPU) and GDDR5 is obviously optimized for the GPU (hence the name). Before you go thinking that it’s a good thing, know that the downside is that DDR5 still isn’t fully developed for CPU/system memory and has horribly slow timings compared to DDR3 and performs MUCH worse for system memory than DDR3 does currently. It’s a trade-off, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out performance-wise. But system memory isn’t very important for console performance. Graphics memory is more important.

        Either way, the bottom line is that the performance of a $600 gaming PC will STILL dwarf the PS4 and NextBox, with the added advantage of being able to upgrade at any time.

        • Jason

          DDR5 can be and is out of the box Faster than DDR3 hence Double Data Rate 3 or 5? lol Look at most Clock speeds on DDR5 cards, most are around 200mhz faster than DDR3, but I will say that it does consume more energy and gets hotter faster than a DDR3 GPU 😉

        • DarthDiggler


          Either way, the bottom line is that the performance of a $600 gaming PC will STILL dwarf the PS4 and NextBox

          You have no benchmarks to draw from as evidence. You are purely speculating based on individual components and not how well they will all run together.

          GDDR5 is pretty mature now, developers have been working directly with Video Memory for some time now and I don’t recall GDDR5 being a huge issue.

          Its been my experience that faster memory is better than more memory. This was via my own PC upgrades when I was a PC gamer.

          The fact is applications only use up so much memory and very few PC applications will target 8GB of RAM. Most of the games released today work within Windows 32-bit limitations (they have to or they would reduce their audience quite a bit). Given that is the case, I would suggest that things look very good for the Next Gen consoles.

    • entry level is more like 4GB. And as far as I know, games require 2GBs and most is eaten up by Windows. 8GB is more than enough for the next 10 years, as 50gb Blu-ray Discs and current HDTVs.

    • Blaine

      8GB is entry level? I have a high-end $1300 gaming rig and I only have 8GB because you don’t need any more than that for gaming. at all. It’s clocked at 2400Mhz so it’s super fast, but it’s still 8GB. More than 8GB is literally a waste for a gaming PC. No game uses anywhere close to 8GB of system memory. Graphics memory is far more important. If all you do is game, you could get away with 6GB and still have blistering performance, unless you plan on running multiple games simultaneously for some reason…

      8GB is good for consoles. It’s 16x more than what they had before. If you think 8GB is “entry level” you probably don’t own a gaming PC or didn’t build it yourself.

      • ?

        The top developers in the country disagree with everything you said. PC gamers seem to forget Consoles is built for gaming. They can do alot of tricks that PC cannot do when it comes to pushing the hardware.

        “It’s like giving you the world’s best PC,” he said. “The kind of stuff that they announced that they’re doing, the level of convenience and things like that… they’re making a really perfect gaming PC. This was said by Vice president of EPIC games Mark Rein.

        Next gen is going to be totally diffrent ballgame in the graphics department. And let me put it this way you can go on and on about hardware but if the games does not push that hardware what is the point. Developers can push console hardware to there max because everything in them is dedicated to gaming. We are going to see some epic shit with these new consoles.

        • ?

          sorry blaine this was meant for moose.

        • Disagree? Dude first off all game devs HAVE to talk good about the next gen. You’ll never see them talking trash when they are making money thanks to the consoles. But yes I agree consoles are BUILT to be mainly be used for gaming. BUT if you know how to build a PC, you can build one as powerful or more for less money. But I chose console over PC any day because you won’t get so much crap from OS like you do on PCs. Errors here and there all the time.

          • DanDustEmOff

            You may be able to build one for less than a console but it will not perform anywhere near as good as the console, how many fps do you think you would get playing CoD on a pc with 512mb shared memory at 700mhz. The truth is that because all xboxes will have the same hardware and all PS4’s will have the same hardware they can code the game better getting a better performance out of the game than they could for a PC of the same specs. Trouble is that these systems needed to come out 2 years ago they will both be out of date before they hit the shelves and will only be able to close the gap for a year maybe 2 and they will be using this gen for 5-8 years its just a waste of money. Bite the bullet buy some high end components and your set for 5-8 years by using an sli on a second card and basic overclocking.

            • DarthDiggler


              The trouble is I am not confident that you have as good of an understanding of hardware that you think you do. 😛

            • DanDustEmOff

              I’m still learning and open to criticism but I’m pretty sure that statement is accurate if you know differently then go ahead.

            • Look if I wanted to build a PC exactly as good as a PS4 when the PS4 comes out I wouldn’t be able to do it. I can build a PC but just basically build it, nothing else. I can learn but while I’m buying each piece of hardware and reading online stuff about overclocking or whatever else there is to optimizing a PC, I can just pay what, 100€ more for a system that is built from the get go with PlayStation’s OS, access to the PlayStation Network (including my PSN Profile, features, etc) and I’m guaranteed a system for around 10 years to be able to play all the PS4 game perfectly and if anything is wrong with the system I can get it replaced without having to open it and change hardware here and there. It’s just convenient overall. And like I said, you can deal with so much errors on PC. The game doesn’t work properly with your hardware or OS and stuff like that. Oh and if you don’t have a legal copy of Windows and other software then you can also encounter problems there. So getting a legit copy of Windows also adds up. Besides, have you seen PS3 games compared to PC? Some are almost as good looking and I don’t need the BEST graphics to enjoy a game. You’re just being brainwashed here and there into thinking you need the best in everything but what consoles offer are good enough and that’s coming from a serious long time gamer. I will say I sometimes prefer to be able to play with a mouse and keyboard for certain games. Evertything else is extra and will be added with the next gen and with updates like doing multiple things at once (music, voice chat and shit will playing) Just personal experience and opinion.

          • DarthDiggler


            Look I don’t care how much you PC guys love your PC as a gaming rig, but I can tell you that Developers prefer working on a standard platform. It makes their job infinitely easier to code for 2-3 similar platforms than try to satisfy every end of the PC audience (the $200 computer buyer and the $8000 computer buyer).

            The fact is on the PC there are many more situations to be let down and often you are spending $200-$300 for a new video card that only 1 game will fully support.

            That’s why I am a console player.

            • I agree 100% and dude, why are you saying I love my PC rig. Dude I’m a PS3 gamer since 2007. I did game on PC a lot around 2008/2009 but I stopped. I even said in my comment that I prefer consoles. 🙂

      • Jason

        I agree, but if you see the Xbox 720 rumors they state an X64X86 CPU setup which X86 can only support up to 3gb RAM on CPU and X64 can support over 4gb RAM which will let the GPU and Games optimize more RAM, The Developer can determine how much RAM the game uses but like you said, most games don’t go past 4gb really, but I can see BF4 pushing those limits to maybe around 6.

        • DarthDiggler


          The fact is (at least on the PS4) they will have access to 7.5GB of Memory. DICE isn’t the type of developer to just leave assets on the table. I bet BF4 uses 100% of the memory.

    • It’s a joke? Hmm so when a game comes out that need better specs then what you got. You need to rebuild or add components to your hardware. On consoles we always ready. Just need couple patches.

    • DarthDiggler


      Well if you are running 32-bit windows you won’t be able to access any more than 4GB (3GB after Windows loads).

      Also Windows is an inefficient platform for gaming compared to consoles. If you had the exact same specs on a PC running an OS, the performance winner will be the console, but a fairly decent margin. The PS4 is basically a PC without the non-sense of a PC.

      Also there are NO PCs that have 8GB GDDR5 RAM on the motherboard. None are even in the pipeline. It would be about 2-4 years before it would come to market if they started on it today.

      8GB GDDR5 Graphics Cards run over $1000.

    • DestryLP

      8GB GDDR5 isn’t entry level at all, in fact, both the top consumer/enthusiast grade gpus released this year (GTX Titan and AMD 7990) are both 6GB GDDR5. GDDR5 and DDR3 are completely different things within a PC.

      Example; My Asus G74SX has 3GB GDDR5 & 12GB DDR3

  • What about PC??? We want more weapons!!! 😀

    • Nope, CoD became a console game after CoD 2 remember? :p

      • hey you forgot WAW

        • No, CoD started becoming stale after WaW but CoD 2 will always be the best as it was the one that brought Call of Duty into multiplayer and didnt have a bunch of BS perks and kill streaks that turned me away from the franchise

          • COD1 will always be my fav

          • DarthDiggler

            I think Nostalgia explains COD’s success more than it’s Engine. 🙂

  • It would of been cool to see more weapon dlc. Maybe this will open doors for future cods.

  • In the other news DICE have successfully injected 22 new weapons in BF3 via it’s DLCs.

    • CoDs next engine will be able to add more guns, for now its not that big of a deal, more people will continue to play it than BF3

      • TylerBlonde

        Yea right BF3 is always going to be better

        • maybe so, but all im saying is dlc guns isnt a big deal, its never been so for call of duty players, they are used to just getting maps so it will continue to be played more than BF3 despite poorer dlc content.

          • DarthDiggler

            Well not having DLC guns and being a COD fan saying DLC guns isn’t a big deal comes off as an Activision apologist.

            For BF3 the guns have been a major draw. Doing all the assignments for the Crossbow bolts has been fun and new weapons introduce new ways to play the same game which gives a little refresh to some of the older maps.

      • xkj220x

        Battlefield 3 been out for 2 years almost and there’ more people on BF3 then every cod to date besides BO2. Even then how many of those players are over the age of 14.?

        • Every cod has had 3x more players. Battlefield has players right now because its the lastest battlefield game that people can play at the moment. We will see how many players are still playing bf3 when bf4 is out for a month. Its natural that the previous iteration of cod will have less players. Same goes for battlefield.

        • so what you trying to say is that…I should play BF3 just because it doesn’t have kiddies…that’s like saying i shouldn’t watch porn because there are men…

        • where did you get that info cos from what i understand BF3 has less players than MW2, and to say only under 14s play cod is just stupid thats completely untrue. im not siding with CoD i was merely stating a fact, regardless of what dice offer for dlc with BF3 CoD will still attract more players. no one can dispute this

      • DarthDiggler


        You are making some very big boasts and it sounds to me like you are not an avid Battlefield 3 player. The fact is DICE’s next gen engine has been in the works since BFBC2 (released in 2010 been in the works much longer).

        The Frostbite engine has been scaled for consoles and DICE will be able to let loose with the real full working engine for the next gen consoles.

        While Activision is doing nice facial tech demos, DICE is already 4-5 years mature with real game destruction and vehicular battles. Suggesting that Activision will catch up to all of this in the span of a few years is a very ambitious claim.

        IMHO COD has reached it’s peak, the next generation will usher in Battlefield Dominance because it will actually look like a next generation title not just in the graphics, but in the physics of the environment and vehicles too.

        COD has no place to go now, but down.

        • personally I think – give it about 2 years, both will be over shadowed by a new franchise

    • kida

      Exactly, BF completley dominates CoD in terms of DLC. Hopefully they will add more gun dlc in future installments

      • You all just don’t get it. They done that just to get more money. Add something they never done before and make it look good. You’ll buy it they know it.

        • DarthDiggler


          Most of us understand the concept of a free enterprise economy. Of course they did it for money. What I don’t understand is how people can say this with contempt with a straight face.

          The fact is anyone who owns Battlefield 3 and is a Premium User generally has nothing but good things to say about the DLC. Not because these are mind numbed robots that have been activated by EA to purchase DLC. It is because the DLC maps for Battlefield 3 are pretty freaking awesome.

          I am more than happy to trade $50 for doubling my maps and getting new weapons every 2-3 months. Especially when each new map packs offers new types of gameplay.

          You realize that your parents go to work to make money to allow you to stay in that basement all day? How greedy of them!


          Just so sick of knee-jerk “greed” comments. Grow up, understand that there are people who voluntarily work in the game industry (up to 50+ hours a week) to provide you with entertainment. Just so sick of EA (or insert any corporation here) is greedy non-sense. EA is a business who has a duty to make money for their employees and stockholders.

          IMHO the school system really fails us as a society when everything a company does is met with the moniker of “greedy whores” when people have little or no evidence to support their claims.

          • Dirtknap

            I think what he was trying to say is Treyarch have set a false expectation that weapon DLC will now be part in parcel to all map packs. This in turn encouraging more community members to purchase the season pass because of greater perceived value for money, which is then proved to be a one time deal.

            The franchises success seems to be starting to plateau, BLOPS II hasn’t performed as strongly as previous iterations (don’t get me wrong, it’s still a cash cow) so new strategies have to be devised to keep the milking sheds open.

            • DarthDiggler


              You know I see what you are saying now. My apologies to Rob if you weren’t just bringing the usual knee-jerk “GREED” accusation. I hear it so often that perhaps I am a tad sensitive to it. I mean after Dead Space 3, you can understand. 🙂

              I still stand by my analysis on economic education from public schools though.

            • Dirtknap

              Agreed 😀

        • dpg70

          No sir, I think it’s you that doesn’t get it.

        • and this is different from COD because?? At least DICE gave a crap ton of extras with there DLC

      • betosobreira

        Oh don’t give me that crap!! “Completely dominates”???

        • Jason

          YES it does and that’s a fact not an opinion!

          • Dane Curbow

            Actually that is an opinion. Whatever you think about a game on whether or not you like it or the decision around it is an opinion. Not everyone is going to agree, quite obviously.

            • Jason

              ? It was stated that BF3 has MORE CONTENT in the DLC’s than COD:BLOPS 2, That is FACT not opinion Idiots! Im not arguing who has better maps or better modes… which would be opinion.

            • That guy

              No crap it has more Dlc. They can’t Add That Many To The cod franchise since They Shovel out A new game every year

            • DarthDiggler

              You can measure things with a game engine though. There are certain factual metrics that can be extrapolated.

              In terms of how many vehicles you have in game and how many people you can have per server, Battlefield 3 wins hands down, and that isn’t even getting into the nitty gritty of the game engine.

              The technology behind Battlefield 3 is hands down much more advanced than COD which relies upon Quake III Open Source game engine at it’s core (which is 22 years old).

              That isn’t opinion, these are facts.

            • Whoa whoa whoa, the Quake III engine is TWENTY-TWO years old now? Wow. I knew it was over a decade, but I didn’t think it was 22 freakin’ years old. They better be working on a new engine, ffs…

            • DarthDiggler

              I was slightly off on my age, it’s well over 15 years old. The fact is the development of Quake I – III there was never any full re-writes. So Quake III pretty much contained most of the Quake I and II code. It was just expanded on.

              So technically one could argue that development on the Quake III engine started prior to 1995. Quake Engine didn’t get a rewrite until ID Tech 4.

              The fact is COD doesn’t run so great because Quake 3 is such an advanced engine. It runs great because for the most part Quake 3 games traditionally have run on machines that measured their processing power in MHz not GHz. The engine was designed for CPUs that are less powerful by a factor of 10.

              The reason they don’t have destruction and only 1 game has vehicles is because IW doesn’t really know what they are doing (at least from where I am sitting).

            • Anon

              The Quake 3 engine is 22 years old eh? And you have the audacity to say that “these are facts”? Do some research, it’s actually about 13 years old. Quake 3 was released in 1999. And I’m sorry but the id tech engines are the best engines that you can get for FPSes, if you say otherwise then you’re a silly little child who doesn’t recognize the glory of games such as Doom and Quake, the best FPS games around.

            • DarthDiggler

              @5aaf64c02c7efb8acd877d54aba81b36:disqus How brave you are to identify yourself! 🙂

              OK I was off a few years. The first Quake III game was Quake 3 arena, but saying it’s 13 years old discounts the the development time. Quake II came out in 1997, so it’s safe to assume that Quake III was in development at LEAST 2 years. So now we are up to 15+ years.

              In terms of Gaming Tech 15 years is a SHIT LOAD. I played the shit out of Quake III games when they were new. I never expected in 1999 that in 2013 someone would still be using that same engine.

              Does Infinity Ward still use Typewriters? Likely not. So why are they using what is pretty much equivalent to Typewriters for a game engine?

              What would Battlefield 3 look like if it used a 15+ year old game engine?

              What if all the next gen developers got lazy and just applied community mods to a 15+ year old game engine and called it a day? Would they deserve $60+ per game?

          • betosobreira

            I RESPECT you opinion but I don’t AGREE. Peace.

            • DarthDiggler


              In terms of scope of gameplay COD really doesn’t have a ton to offer over what I experienced with the first Quake. If you take kill streak bonuses out there is little difference between the two beyond the themes and setting.

              While it is opinion that BF3 dominates COD, one could argue as fact that the technology that goes into COD is dominated by the tech that goes into BF3.

              Also don’t forget Activision has made enough money off this franchise to fund a small country but seemingly can’t find the revenue to supply dedicated servers which are desperately needed for the COD series.

            • betosobreira

              I couldn’t agree more with the part of dedicated servers. I can’t support more “host migration”.

            • DarthDiggler


              If you are a day 1 COD buyer you are the #1 reason they don’t have dedicated servers. They know you will buy it regardless. The PC crowd would not accept not having dedicated servers.

              Guess what COD for the PC has dedicated servers. 🙂

              What will be hilarious is if Activision adds dedicated server support, I will imagine all the COD fanboys will be talking about dedicated servers like it was the best thing since blow-up dolls.

            • It would be like features on an iOS that were already on Android. Android had a notification pull down bar since its inception but when iOS got it, their fans though it was the biggest innovation. This is another war for another place though 🙂

            • PC has dedicated.

            • IF you played on PC you’d have them.

            • Activision fund a small army? Did you not see what Infinity Ward did too Activision in that little court case not long ago? They are on scrape duty, thats why all Activision development teams are pushing new content at a new record pace.

            • DarthDiggler

              LOL Scrape Duty HAHAHAHA. You mean they won’t be able to afford Eminem at their E3 show this year? 🙂 Awwwww gotta suck to hang out in the Actvision poor house. 🙂

        • It does in terms of content. Whether you like the COD DLC more than the BF DLC is completely opinionated though.

          • DarthDiggler


            It is true, it is a matter of opinion that some people like to run in circles in a map about half the size of a football field.

            Some of us like to stretch our legs and use something called “tactics” though, flanking for the win!

            • LOLFCKMERIGHT?

              This was the most useless discussion. THAT IS A FACT ;)!

            • DarthDiggler


              Care to elaborate or is that outside your mental faculties?

            • @DarthDiggler:disqus you are just on a streak aren’t you(no pun intended)

            • DarthDiggler

              HAHAHAHAHA 🙂 And I am back 2 months later because someone had the audacity to reply! 🙂

          • DarthDiggler

            Yeah but in terms of what you get for your money BF3 kind of has COD beat. You get bigger maps, more vehicles and more weapons. 🙂 LOL

    • MPstreader

      The only way to stop the trolling of these despicable BF fanboys is to delete troll comments so that they will stop ruining this site.

      • That isnt trolling. Its the truth.

        • And off topic. Was there a question asking how many guns were in DLCs for other games? No.

          • MrLadyfingers

            You’re telling me that we shouldn’t be allowed to compare CoD to other FPS games? Bahaha what kind of fantasy world do you live in? One where we can only play CoD? That’s pretty scary.

            Clearly you’re offended by the opinions of others. The only fanboy here is you.

            • DanDustEmOff

              He is on a cod article not a bf thread and where does he say you can only play CoD

            • There a time and a place for this discussion. This is not a comparative article. You’re blowing my comment way out of proportion. I enjoy both games.

          • Jason

            No but you can’t help but to be outspoken about it when Treyarch gives excuses like “Not enough RAM” LOL, BF3 is one of the Most Memory stressful games out there, just look at the Scope of the game itself, That was just a Typical Excuse of Laziness in my book!

            • the call of duty engine was not designed to add dlc guns, just maps, it is technical restrictions wether you choose to believe it or not. do you really believe activision would pass on a chance to get more cash outta their games with dlc gun packs? when they finally develop a new engine then you will see them adding endless amounts of guns, i bet microtransactions for them and all sorts.

            • Jason

              I know, I explained this in a different post, It’s not the “engine” though…

            • DarthDiggler


              I would like to think that if the COD engine didn’t rely on 22 year old technology from Quake III Open Source engine they could do a lot more with it.

              This wasn’t a technological limitation, Activision didn’t want to invest money into a new game engine when all their fans are happy with the old one.

              The only limitation was imposed by the developer and (likely mostly) the publisher. Battlefield 3 proves that there are a great number of things that are technically limited on the aging COD engine.

            • Katana67

              That’s a fair assessment. But I don’t necessarily think CoD is going for innovation, so an older (more responsive in my opinion) mechanic is fitting.

              While I agree with you that BF3 demonstrates a lot of the failings of CoD technically, it works both ways for me. There are a lot of things that BF3 does poorly that CoD does well, and vice versa. It may be largely tipped in the favor of BF3, but CoD still has a few pro’s in its column in my mind.

            • DarthDiggler

              You are being far too kind to Infinity War, Treyarch and Activision. I think you hit on some truth here though.

              COD doesn’t need to innovate people buy it regardless. I think now that Black Ops II isn’t performing as well you are going to see these devs actually get off their asses and create an actual game for the next generation. Considering the COD engine isn’t even original I wouldn’t be surprised to see the next COD use a heavily modified Unreal 3 engine or Unreal 4 even.

              You don’t need older technology to produce 60 frames per second. The reason so many games are 30 frames per second is that it gives developers a much larger canvas to play with. You can basically do about twice as much with 30 frames per second that you can do with 60.

              Battlefield could run at 60 frames per second if you wanted to get rid of a good portion of the game. Hell if you got rid of all the vehicles and destruction and limited the game to 18 player matches. 🙂

              Most of the people I know that prefer COD only prefer COD because they get their asses handed to them in BF. Mostly its because they are trying to use the same tactics in BF that they used in COD and they get shut down.

              I understand they both have their pros and cons an I know the COD community hangs on to the 60 frames per second as if it was Gospel, but the truth is Activision touts this 60FPS performance as a way to explain the lackluster graphics IMHO. Also the lack of dedicated servers has really put a nail in the coffin for me and COD. Like I said when it is possible for people to run through your bullets and knife you that is a failure of development.

            • agreed – apparently Unreal 4 engine is going to be used also

            • They need a new engine for the PS4/new XBox agreed – but it’s not really a 22 year old engine… It is originally BASED on the ID Tech 3 engine and called the IW Engine which came out with Call of Duty 2 in 2005. The thing is the core structure of the engine is the same but it has been updated/re-written over the years just as other engines have. Do you think that the frostbite 3 engine isn’t based off the core of the frostbite 1 engine which was released in 2008 for Bad company 1 (only 3 years after the IW engine)?

            • That’s true but comparing the 1st iteration of Frostbite to the most current and you can complile an entire presentation on what has changed that goes beyond just HDR abd Bounce lighting which Treyarch constantly boasted pre launch.

            • Infinity Ward wrote their own engine for COD2, which left only 10% of the original engine they used for COD1 (which was as everyone knows a heavily modified Quake 3 engine). If we take just one example of the major changes they made, the method of lighting used in the COD2 is very different from that used in Quake 3, which is Gouraud shading. Infinity Ward’s engine uses Phong shading. You cannot get the same kind of bump mapping with Gouraud shading as you can with Phong. Quake 3 has very poor bump mapping capabilities which is why it was never implemented in the final engine.

              People talk about IW using a “heavily modified” Quake 3 engine, but really, if you look at just the method of lighting, switching from Gouraud to Phong, you are changing a very major aspect of any game engine.

              I could go on and on and itemise all the differences between IW’s engine and Quake 3, but suffice it to say that when all is said and done, if the COD engine is just a “heavily modified” Quake 3 engine, then so is Valve’s Source engine just a “heavily modified” Quake 1 engine. In fact, there are strong parallels in the way IW and Valve have developed their engines, both starting off with id Tech and moving on to replace almost all of it with their own. Valve calls the Source engine “their” engine because it is; so is Infinity Ward’s engine “theirs”, I have played both the BF and CoD series, they are both very enjoyable, they could both use some ideas from eachother but that goes equally both ways, BF could use things from CoD and CoD could use things from BF, but dont come on here posting ignorance about one thing, the gaming engine, throughout this entire thread that is the one recurring thing I have seen you post about, so find some new “facts”. I just discredited yours.

            • DarthDiggler


              I agree, I think most of these COD fans don’t seem to have as intricate understanding of the underlying features of the game engine. Hell 90% of them don’t even realize they been playing the same game for 8 years. 🙂 LOL

            • You clearly don; understand how the memory works in CoD compared to BF3. Have you ever picked up a kit in BF3? Notice howl long it takes to load? It even happens when you change kit as you spawn, the weapon takes a few seconds to appear compared to CoD.

            • Jason

              I don’t know what to say to that? I just explained the difference, and YES i know more about Memory than your Own Memory can comprehend silly

            • DarthDiggler


              Well you are comparing Apples to Oranges. When you pickup a Gun in COD you pick up a Gun. You still have the same capabilities as you did before now with a new Gun!

              In BF3 when you pick up a gun you pick up a KIT! With that Kit comes guns and that kit’s capabilities. If you grab a medic kit you can use medic abilities, if you pick up the support Kit you can dish out ammo.

              When was the last time you picked up a gun in COD and it changed your perk or kill streak? Never!

              Picking up Kits in BF3 is much more than just getting a gun, so the small amount of latency is completely warranted.

              If you COD guys want to get into a pissing match about BF3 vs BO2 in terms of technology, bring it on, this will be one argument you will all lose out of ignorance.

            • DanDustEmOff

              I wouldn’t want to change kits when I pick up a gun in CoD. I like the fact that you customise your player and the gun is customised independently of the player

            • DarthDiggler


              Sounds like you haven’t played Battlefield 3 at all. You can customize your kit, you can customize your gun, you can change perks, you can customize the vehicles too. All this stuff can be done independently on BF3 too. Battlefield supports a true class system.

            • A true class system? really mate? BF3 supports a class system which has been around since Multiplayer FPS games were becoming popular – now don’t call me a COD fanboy because I have both games and play them about equal ammounts (well probably BF3 a little more these days even…) but the freedom that they have created in BOPS2 with the pick 10 system is 2nd to none in my opinion – not restricting you to have a certain ‘class’ of character. Now from all the comments I’ve read from you it’s seeming that you yourself havn’t really played much COD over the past few years, might not be true but just sounds that way with the arrogance I’m hearing…

            • DanDustEmOff

              Perhaps I should have been clearer yes you can customise your player but not to the extent you can in CoD. You are still limited to an extent by the fact that there are 4 class types and each one has certain limitations, where as in CoD you can have any equipment, tactical equipment , guns, perks you like. I wouldn’t say BF has a bad class system its a time proven classic, but I like CoD’s the way it is.

            • There are weapon types in COD have different us that obviously uses, but there is not a true class system in COD, just custom loadouts dubbed as “Create a Class”. A “Class” would indicate that there is a specific ability involved. There are no specific abilities in CoD. Battlefield used to have like 7 different classes but its streamlined to 4.

            • DAboss

              BO2 has no body camo but bf3 does

            • Refer to my response to MrLadyFingers.

      • Well it is a free forum site, but yeah I don’t want this place to end up like IGN’s comment section where after 10 comments then entire thing is irrelevant fanboy drivel…

        • pot51e

          In which case, may I suggest you forsake the Internet forever? Any number of boards on any number of topics descend to this point. Learn to ignore the trolls and argue your point objectively.

      • Luis Mitis

        “despicable BF fanboys” lol
        battlefield is moree realistic an superior OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH :O ! YOU MAD BRUH ?

        • DanDustEmOff

          Realism doesn’t make a superior game, game play does and on console CoD beats it hands down

          • How exactly? What does CoD gameplay do that Battlefield gameplay doesn’t and I’m being serious. Not trying to argue any point. I’m just saying. CoD has AI controlled vehicles, Battlefield has one AI controlled vehicle and way more user controlled vehicle. CoD has perks which are effectively cheat and are for the most part never balanced, just thrown in because they sound cool. Battlefield has perks that are more akin to extra equipment. CoD has no recoil and hit scan, Battlefield has no hitscan, recoil, deviation, bullet drip and more ballistic factors that just makes the game feel more natural to play.

            • Go play arma games. Battlefield isn’t even close to realism. Its an arcade shooter with vehicles.

            • DanDustEmOff

              Battlefield plays at 30 frames a second Cod plays at 60 this makes it a smoother experience. All the features you talk about are a good thing to have in a game but not at the expense of a 30 frame drop. I also feel that Battlefield has a lack of action too much movement not enough gunfights but thats more of a preference. Not all CoD Vehicles are ai controlled AGR, Dragon fire etc.. and you have to earn them. I dont think of perks as cheats at all more like a skill set that you can customise at the cost of not being able to use something else and in Black Ops 2 are reasonably well balanced if balance is something that bothers you. Guns in Cod do have recoil some more than others but its there and because its a short range engagement its easier to put them on target whereas BF has more long range engagments.

            • DarthDiggler


              “All the features you talk about are a good thing to have in a game but not at the expense of a 30 frame drop.”

              That is a matter of opinion. Most people don’t miss the other 30FPS that you COD fans never stop talking about. It is afterall the only metric that COD exceeds BF3.

              Great it has 60 frame per second and runs like a Quake game from the 90s with a few tweaks!

              You know I bet that you could get DOOM to run at like 240-480 frames per second on the PS3/Xbox 360 so that would make DOOM a better game than COD — AMIRITE? 🙂

              You know I bet the Atari game Adventure could top 1000 frame per second on modern consoles meaning it would be the best game EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            • DanDustEmOff

              Of course you miss 30 fps unless you are a complete Mole that has never seen daylight I like battlefield on the PC its a great game but the console version is terrible 60fps is the lowest I would ever consider playing a game. It makes a huge difference to how well you can play a game and the cinematic experience. I’m not saying that the game with the highest frame rate is the best just that anything less than 60 is bad. Quake is a classic but nothing like CoD.

            • DarthDiggler


              Understand you are in the minority. Most people don’t mind 30FPS game play. Most people don’t hold developers hostage over 1 feature too. I judge whether or not I will play a game based on mostly 1 feature — is it fun?

              You know what COD fails on that in various ways. One way it supremely fails in a way that BF3 never does is…

              Migrating Hosts. 🙂

            • kylealbertb

              mmh well too me bf3 runs smoother then cod even with a full game

            • Lag makes up for the other 30 frames tho…

            • DanDustEmOff

              I can not argue with you about the lag i hate it. But when you get a good connection its a great game.

          • DarthDiggler


            Well BF3 tends to take a page from both aspects. 🙂

            If we are comparing gameplay . . .

            I will take vehicles over tired and “cheat-like” kill streaks.

            I will take larger maps (and very well designed smaller ones) over COD closet sized maps any day.

            Technically speaking according to your own definition of a good game there: Battlefield 3 has more game play varieties than COD. So thus it is the superior game! 🙂 HAHAHAHA Couple that with the fact that EA has dedicated servers that nearly guarantee you an above satisfactory experience during the game and I don’t know how any of you can really compare the two. To put it simply one game works consistently online the other game ships consistently with the exact same online issues.

            In terms of quality of online experience Battlefield 3 runs freaking circles around Call of Duty.

            Seriously I used to play COD, but I woke up one day and got tired of running around in circles hoping the game wouldn’t spawn an enemy behind me (which is a result of very poor map design and it happens in every COD game). On top of the never ending issues with online that would result in really stupid shit like someone being able to run though my bullets and knife me.

            • on bf3 you can easily spawn kill,just saying.

            • DarthDiggler


              On the newer maps there are generally some issues that get patched out, but unless you are playing BF3 like a COD Noob (and your entire team is that stupid) there really is NO reason to get spawn camped.

              I can count on 1 hand how many times I have been spawn camped in Battlefield (all of them). On COD generally get spawn camped day 1 and the maps are so small that IW / Treyarch can’t really do all that much about it.

            • i spawn kill other people.Cant believe that barely no one on bf3 has figured out that spawn killing is do-able. Apart from jet/helicopter users.

            • DarthDiggler


              Perhaps you may want to go back and read what I said. I never said it wasn’t possible.

              I am just saying that the conditions to exist to spawn camp (effectively) on BF3 are much higher than COD. Basically your entire team needs to be playing BF3 like they are noobs. In Call of Duty if your entire team camps certain spawn points you can almost always rely on people spawning in 1 area which is why COD doesn’t have Spawn areas beyond the first Spawn it would be far too easy to spawn camp at that point.

              How often do you see “host migration” on BF3? 🙂

            • ofcourse you don see host migration,why bring up that point when we are talking about spawn rape. In bf3 i get kicked out of servers because i destroy the admins,thats way worse than host migration.

            • DanDustEmOff

              God you do love BF don’t u

            • DarthDiggler


              LOL I really appreciate the amount of work the developers put into making Battlefield both a fun and balanced gameplay experience.

              The truth is though, I spent played all the COD (up until MW2/BLOPS) just thinking I sucked at First Person Shooters all of a sudden. I wasn’t aware of the shitty netcode at the time or the fact that the game relied on 22 year old game engine at its core. I was like most game players I just assumed the game developers were actual experts on creating the games I play.

              By the time Black Ops was released I was just fed up with the fact that Activision (which hired Eminem that year for it’s E3 Celebration) didn’t seem to have the revenues to establish the dedicated servers that seem to be required for a game of it’s speed. It had become clear to me that is the #1 failing of the game.

              Than it dawned on me. Activision is more of a marketing firm than a game developer. I would honestly be a little shocked to find out they spent more money on the development of the games than they did on the marketing.

              So who is polishing a turd now bro?

            • DanDustEmOff

              Truth is mate you probably do suck at FPS games Blops did have poor net code and every CoD after that(MW3 was eventually patched)but MW1 and MW2 had solid net code and even a 1v1 across continents was playable in CoD 4. Of course Activision is a marketing firm so are EA they are publishers not developers that is a stupid point to make.

            • I love BF3 for the vehicles and massive open spaces to use to my advantage, I love COD for the fast paced/fast action more arcade like gameplay – Yes. they are both first person shooters but they are 2 completely different games when it comes down to it. Both have pros and cons depending on the style of game you feel like playing at that time. I love them both for what they are. Case closed….

        • betosobreira

          If you want realism engage in US army and go to North Korea you idiot!!

          • teo2cry

            We are talking about games…

            • betosobreira

              Do you even know how to read??

            • DarthDiggler


              I know how to read and when we talk about realism on a gaming website it is implied we are not talking about Real Life.

              Just an FYI for you.

            • Yes, we are talking about games. @Luis Mitis is talking about realism..

      • DarthDiggler


        The comments haven’t been too trollish. Change your diapers and stop crying.

    • DanDustEmOff

      But failed to get the game to play at a decent frame rate.

      • DarthDiggler

        LOL See my comment about frame rates above. You are pretty myopic and quite honestly I am not sure if you have given Battlefield a serious chance.

        There have been many shitty 60 frame per second games made. There have been many great 30 frame per second games made.

        Saying a game can’t be good unless it is 60 FPS isn’t a valid argument it is a false cause logical fallacy.

        “You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.”

        You are free to say in my opinion 60FPS is better and list your reasons, but that isn’t a proclamation of fact which is how you have been framing your entire “60FPS is better” arguments.

        • DanDustEmOff

          Anyone who has played BF on a PC and on a console will tell you the console port is garbage I like both CoD and Battlefield I have played them both for years I like CoD because nearly all my friends play it on the Xbox and its a fun fast paced game and Battlefield because its a beast of a game when you play it on a machine that can play it to its full potential the current gen is not that platform.

          • DarthDiggler


            Yeah well there are some of us that just like gaming on the PS3 and IMHO the COD PS3 port (and Xbox 360 port) is garbage. Without dedicated servers the game is a complete shit storm and has been since day one, but that doesn’t stop the COD fans from waiting in line at midnight every time Activsion releases their Crack of Duty. So while you are so proud of the COD developers for sticking with 60FPS you don’t seem to have an issue with the fact that the net-code hardly supports 60FPS on the consoles. Talk about being all dressed up with no place to go! 🙂

            You aren’t hurting my feelings by revealing that the PC version of BF3 is the best one. The problem is you don’t seem to see that the PC version of COD is the best one.

            I don’t play PC games though, so whatever arguments you have about the PC game vs the console will fall on deaf ears. I am well aware the PC is a more powerful platform so no need to keep hammering that obvious point any more.

            • DanDustEmOff

              The trouble is that there are sooo many games that are better on the PC than CoD BF being one of them CoD havent made a good PC game since 2 so although its better on the PC its not good enough for me to buy. If you like BF i strongly suggest that you look into joining the PC comunity you could build a system that would run BF on better than console graphics at 60 fps for £500-£600. FYI the Xbox 360 version of CoD is not a port it is developed on a 360 and ported to the other platforms

        • Dirtknap

          Fair enough, it’s not the only metric to consider, but I can manage a much longer stint on CoD than BF3, solely because of frame rate. Playing an FPS for a long duration at 30fps almost induces eye bleeding. Another aspect in which CoD excels is its controls, they are so damned tight and seamless, its those fundamentals that keep me playing the franchise (though my interest continues to wane more and more).

          I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, beyond their settings and sharing a common genre, you can’t really compare BF and CoD. They offer different experiences that won’t necessarily appeal to everyone.

    • Jason

      And 83 Weapons total, not including Grenades, C4, Mines, Claymores, etc 🙂

    • So you come onto a call of duty article to comment about battlefield. Your also just a fanboy and no different from cod fanboys.

      • DarthDiggler

        Actually I believe it was the guy that mentioned that “DLC guns aren’t important” that got this matzo ball going.

    • Aria

      I am a basement-dwelling loser who has nothing better to do but to go on COD articles and troll them. It’s the only way I can gain any sort of fullfillment in my pathetic existence.

      • DarthDiggler

        I’d recommend a dehumidifier, basements can be dank and moist.

        On a more meta level perhaps you could consider some type of vocation and direction in life. 🙂

    • I thought it was 23? 10 from B2K, 10 from CQ, XBOW, ACB and M1911-S-TAC. Either way, 20+ more weapons than what COD is doing.

    • JuicedMittens .

      I can recall EA and affiliated companies placing their “DLC” on the disc and charging buyers to unlock what should have been unlocked on other games. Yeah, I’m sure the maps weren’t included but I’d bet the weapons were.

      BF is one of the more visually appealing games… If only the player models didn’t move like bricks.

  • if they dont want to add weapon dlc it would be better to insert 50 weapons within the game.

  • Here’s to hoping their next-gen offering will be able to provide such luxuries as multiple weapon DLCs.

  • BF3 had 22 weapons, not to mention vehicles and upgrades…. RAM MY ASS

    Yes im aware of how gay that sounds..


    • lol

    • DanDustEmOff

      But it only plays at 30fps they can put all the extras that they like in but if it doesn’t play at a decent frame rate whats the point. You can not polish a turd

      • Luis Mitis

        still plays much better than COD ever did…

        • DanDustEmOff

          How can you even state that a game that plays at 30 fps plays better than a game that plays at 60 it may have better features but it can not “play better” the higher the fps is the smoother and fluid the experience is BF is a good game on a pc when you can get 60+fps but on consoles CoD is king

          • Whats the point of high frames when the game has a very low re-playability?? I loved MW2 and Black Ops 1 to a point but once MW3 came out it went down hill in my honest opinion. I do hope COD will be different and much better for Next Gen and not the same old recycled game

            • DanDustEmOff

              I don’t think that is does have a low replay ability but I agree with your hopes for the next gen. I have played both games for years and for me it feels like BF is a recycled game too if you were to play modern combat you would see that its still the same game with better visuals and effects but I don’t believe thats a bad thing modern combat is a really good game

          • DarthDiggler


            Since you are just repeating yourself (over and over) and making wild proclamations based on your own opinion and bias, I feel compelled to oblige..

            LOL See my comment about frame rates above. You are pretty myopic and quite honestly I am not sure if you have given Battlefield a serious

            There have been many shitty 60 frame per second games made. There have been many great 30 frame per second games made.

            Saying a game can’t be good unless it is 60 FPS isn’t a valid argument it is a false cause logical fallacy.

            “You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.”
            SOURCE: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c

            You are free to say in my opinion 60FPS is better and list your reasons, but that isn’t a proclamation of fact which is how you have been framing your entire “60FPS is better” arguments.

            • DanDustEmOff

              Are u stalking me

            • DarthDiggler

              No you keep repeating the same lies over and over again and deeming them as fact.

              The whole 60 FPS makes a better game than 30 FPS isn’t new or novel. Sure animations look better but that isn’t the end all be all of game development. Your own argument is a logical fallacy to begin with.

              Games aren’t bad just for being 30FPS. Games aren’t awesome just for being 60FPS.

              Its just a weak argument. If I made a game that was 6,000,000 frames per second but the only thing it did was say “HEY” when you pressed the X button would you be impressed?

      • DarthDiggler


        Since you are just repeating yourself and making wild proclamations based on your own opinion and bias, I feel compelled to oblige..

        LOL See my comment about frame rates above. You are pretty myopic and quite honestly I am not sure if you have given Battlefield a serious

        There have been many shitty 60 frame per second games made. There have been many great 30 frame per second games made.

        Saying a game can’t be good unless it is 60 FPS isn’t a valid argument it is a false cause logical fallacy.

        “You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.”
        SOURCE: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c

        You are free to say in my opinion 60FPS is better and list your reasons, but that isn’t a proclamation of fact which is how you have been framing your entire “60FPS is better” arguments.

    • betosobreira


  • MegaMan3k

    Dumb experiment then.

  • even if they want they CANT ! they couldnt in MW3 and it was hard for them to add only on more and since its the same engine since……… ever !!! it has the same issues

  • Blaine

    Definitely disappointed to hear there wont be any more weapon DLC… I dont how BF3 managed to do it, honestly I thought it was a technological miracle that DICE was even able to get a game like BF3 running on a measly 512MB of RAM at all. But considering just how small 512MB is, I assure you COD games also max that out as well. Killstreaks and Perks and camos need RAM as well.

    now the REAL reason Treyarch can’t fit more guns into the RAM is because of the whole “gun personalization packs” bullshit. Each of those new camos and all of those new reticules also need to be stored in RAM. Activision, being the money-grubbing whores that they are, decided to sacrifice the guns from the DLC packs so they could make room for some other money-grab gimmicks to sell separately and pick your pockets even more. If they left out the personalization packs, they could fit a new weapon into every single DLC pack.

    • Alot of the crap in BF3 was already on the disk just like the peacekeeper was.

      • COD4forlife

        how do you know that? i thought the peacekeeper was new content?

        • Peacekeeper is on disc, and actually isn’t included in Revolution, but in the Season Pass. I remember nog downloading Revolution on the day it came out on ps3 because I didn’t check yet, but suddenly I could use the Peacekeeper.

          • Zam Zar

            It was part of a patch right before Revolution’s release; it wasn’t on disc.

            • DarthDiggler


              That doesn’t mean it wasn’t on disc.

            • Zam Zar

              Except that the gun was downloaded from the patch… Especially on PC they’d be able to tell if it had been in the game files earlier. I don’t doubt that they planned for there to be a gun DLC, but it wasn’t on disc.

      • Jason

        LOL, no that’s why they were developing DLC months after the Game was released? That is what Treyarch did and is understandable since short Dev time between games and would also explain the RAM Problem since everything is streaming from Disk, VS DICE putting out 2gb Multiplayer Updates and DLC’s so you can Download them and Have the Game streaming off Disc and Whatever they are short on stream from Hard drive otherwise what the point of having Multi Core Processors lol. COD architecture sounds like it was not thought out well when it comes to DLC

      • DarthDiggler


        You seem very confident in that information.

        Care you link us to the article that independently verifies that or were you just making assumptions?

        So sick of people crying about DLC. If you don’t like DLC DO NOT BUY IT!

        The reason there is so much DLC is because WE BUY IT! Stop being schizophrenic about it.

    • betosobreira

      So… “Activision, being the money-grubbing whores that they are,” What about EA ?? Aren’t they money-grubbing whores? BF3 was launched in 2011 and EA just released and End Game DLC in 2013 ?? That’s money whore!!

      • teo2cry

        How lol?

      • teo2cry

        Battlefield 3 was meant to be a game that people play for a few years not like CoD that lasts 1 year and puts out 4 DLC’s per year!Thats a money whore.They could have rained DLC’s from the sky if they really wanted money over quality DLC.Battlefield 3 beats a lot of other games in terms of DLC quality and it actually pays off to buy premium.They actually lower the price of games and offer premium + the game for the price of just the game.MW2’s price dropped just recently after 4 years…

        • betosobreira

          “Battlefield 3 was meant to be a game that people play for a few years not like CoD that lasts 1 year” You just start defending BF3 with bullshit. I bought CoD 2 (2005) and its multiplayer is still alive. Does it last only 1 year? Both companies have different marketing and sales strategies. And you should know that CoD franchise is developed by Treyarch and Infinity Ward. One year IW, other year Treyarch. The way you defend BF3 with so much effort makes me wonder if you really like the game or if you’re only another fanboy.

          • teo2cry

            I am anything but a fanboy,I play all games of all types.I played every CoD from 1-9 and passed every campain atleast 5 times and have atleast 400 in-game MP hours of every game(except MW3 and BO2) but the series got so stale I could’t play BO2 for more then 2 weeks…Battlefield 3 on the other hand when I saw it for the first time it felt so different from any other FPS.When it comes to Battlefield I just think they play the cards right.I feel it is a game I can truly enjoy with friends unlike CoD.

          • teo2cry

            And oh,IW?LOL there isn’t a ghost left out of that company,its Sledgehammer games now.Different people…they can’t work that old magic anymore.

        • DanDustEmOff

          I think when you say “money whore” you mean business that is what they are supposed to do make money to pay their staff and supply a product whilst making money.

          • teo2cry

            Making money is not bad but milking a franchise good until it dies is money whoring.

            • DanDustEmOff

              Yeah the cammo packs were a step too far

      • Battlefield 3 launched and released its first piece of DLC in 2011 and released its last piece of DLC in 2013 with the next game coming 2 years after the games launch. I don’t see how that’s being a money whore but rather strategic placement of DLC release to ensure the game didn’t get stale over the length of two years. Butthurt causes one to speak without sense.

        • betosobreira

          Butthurt causes people to defend BF3 in a CoD post. Peace.

          • DarthDiggler

            Like this never happens on a BF3 post. 😛

            Seriously remove thy dirty diapers and stop thy crying!

      • DarthDiggler

        Seriously have you even tried Battlefield? LOL

        DICE completely disclosed what we’d be getting for DLC. Not like they release Battlefield every freaking year.

      • Battlefield 3 had 29 maps total with all DLC “15$ each” and 9 to start out with + the DLC+Premium came with new weapons, camos, assignments, soldier upgrades and more. I have never got so much stuff with a season pass before and got way more then my money worth with Battlefield 3 Premium. I only got 4 new Mutiplayer maps and a zombie map for 15$ on BO1 with nothing extra!! Now tell me who is the money grabbing whores!!

    • Vikerii

      Yeah, this just means for the next games IW and 3A will hold back more weapons from the core game. Then they can sell a deferred weapon in each DLC pack.

    • wow your dum lol you must like talking out your ass. if you do not know anyting stop making things up.


    They just love shooting themselves in the foot…over and over and over -.-

  • hahahahh… why i play BF3

    • You play BF3 because theres 80 guns & only 5 get used? Your not very bright are you.

      • amishguy

        you’re not a very nice person

      • thebulky1cometh

        *You’re not very bright*

        …not hating, just saying…

  • Who cares about frames per second? I don’t. Look at BF3 damn great graphics and animations. Every game out there is not perfect. CoD fast gameplay lacks realism. BF3 semi-real lacks fast gameplay. Oh that’s why close quarters came out, and mainly all cod fans went on that.

  • Dunklar


  • Antal120

    “There is only 512 [MB] on the consoles”

    Yes but there is another platform “PC” without this RAM limitation and we don’t receive support. Why? because It´s just a port from consoles and this agreement between Activision and Microsoft is killing the PC and PS3 community.

    • DarthDiggler


      “Activision and Microsoft is killing the PC and PS3 community.”

      How do you get that idea?

  • tony

    I just love how no one see’s the possibility that there was no dlc.

    The dlc just unlocked the peace keeper and added the texture files, the fun sounds and model files were probobly just hidden away in the disk. Wouldnt be the first time something like this was done.

  • well there are a couple of guns in the single player that are not in the multi like the rpd sand the galil.. i’m sure it shouldn’t be a problem to move them over to the multiplayer side
    btw i was bummed out theres no g11 in bo2

  • so the first DLC was just to poke fun at BF hmm? FUCK YOU 3arch.

  • Was good while it lasted. We will have to wait and see in the future dlcs if there will be no dlc weapons.

  • thebulky1cometh

    Perhaps well get a new attachment/ score streak? I’d love to have the SAM turret back, as lame as that sounds.

    • Yeah the Sam Turret would be nice. I always wondered, maybe they can add the BO1 style Red Dot for free?
      And I also had this idea. I see everyone crying about having the PaP camouflage in MP. How about this (it’s even harder than Diamond): You need to have all weapons in the category (SMG, AR, LMG etc.) Diamond (Gold), you need to prestige each gun 2 times in the category and reach max level, and you need over 2000 kills with the weapon. If you do all of this, you get PaP camo on all the guns in the category.

  • why don’t people understand that the real fight was between HALO 4 and CALL OF DUTY: BLACK OPS 2 and as you can see black ops 2 WON!!!now that battlefield kicked in is gonna get slained just like halo in about half-a-year time… COD FTW like if you think so >:)

    • DarthDiggler

      ^^ Stupidity Level: Max ^^

  • Seriously, BF fanboys. Go post on somthing BF related. WE don’t give a fuck about what they have.

    • Your average BF fanboy (not you Taylor :p)
      ‘Says CoD players are kids and have no life’
      ‘Goes on his laptop/pc spamming every single CoD thread,video etc saying CoD players have no life, and repeats this 24/7’.

  • dpg70

    Seriously? They couldn’t hold out just a couple more weapons from the base game to sell us later as DLC?

    • DarthDiggler

      LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

      If they did you would likely be complaining…

      Those cock suckers had the weapons on the Disc and sold them to me as DLC. 🙂

  • bf3 has more weopons,but look at how long it too dice to get these wepons balanced and the numerous exploits which came along with it,they ruined the game for that period of time.More weapons doesnt mean a better fps,people only use the top 5 weaopns anyway.Hardly see anyone running around with a pdw-r anymore

    • Katana67

      While I agree that “more weapons =/= better game”, I really have to side with DICE (which I rarely do) with the balance issues. I never really had a problem with anything, my top five weapons are all starter weapons, first round unlocks, or weapons considered not to be OP… and I’ve got a 2.87 K/D. My philosophy has always been “pick weapons that you like/look cool… and get good with them”.

      Sure, SPAS-12 Frag rounds or whatever was annoying… but it was only really a problem on Metro, which is a silly map to begin with. But that is unrelated. I personally think the whole “balance” issue in general, much less in BF3 is far overstated.

      My support for DICE really ends there, as the rest of the gameplay in BF3 is hampered by a lackluster and clunky shooting mechanic with no semblance of accuracy.

      • DarthDiggler


        “My support for DICE really ends there, as the rest of the gameplay in
        BF3 is hampered by a lackluster and clunky shooting mechanic with no
        semblance of accuracy.”

        That’s kind of where the skill comes in to play. 🙂 It’s not an itchy twitchy shooter and I doubt that will change for next gen. Think of it this way though, you will never have some one run though your bullets and knife you! Which in my book is a hallmark of developer fail.

  • I don’t believe them.
    Look at other shooters they can bring new weapons.

  • Jason


  • Dalaga

    Look at the balancing between COD and BF3, if your not a premium member you dont get crap and the people with premium own everything there is. COD Elite for MW3, how bad can it get, other than the special founder stats. Balancing is what it is all about and taking out the DLC weapons is just a sign of balancing lazziness. Put the weapons from the campaign already. But im preatty sure they will come out with a costimization pack and personilization packs in the future.

  • Lol



    The hypocrisy of you fantards make me chuckle.

    At least the Peacekeeper added a different flavor to BO2’s already varied arsenal, instead of adding 20+ filler weapons, with over 4-5 of them seeing actual usage by the community.

  • How can RAM be the issue? BF3 has added 22 new guns, and those are a lot more detailed and complicated graphically. Sounds like laziness to me. Wont be buying any other DLC’s from Craptivision in future.

  • I love how the Peacekeeper clearly has a foregrip already on it, but you still have to choose the grip as an attachment. Should have known they’d add an SMG to the game, because the SMG’s that are already in there aren’t powerful enough, i only just manage to beat them from 100ft away with my DSR 50. God knows why they didn’t introduce a new Assault rifle or sniper rifle. Hate these games man. hate them.

  • nothing to say

    i wont be buying anymore dlc i only bought it for the weapon and many other players did also so i think the dlc’s are going to have far far less profit on black ops 2

  • More DLC weapons

    more DLC weapons i buy the season pass

  • blah blah

    They can add more maps but not weapons via DLC? Whatever, Treyarch. Go kill yourselves you money hungry company.

    • Yeah, I don’t get how adding more maps is fine, but adding weapons somehow causes a problem. You add all these weapons to Zombies mode. What gives?

  • luis4mthemoon

    Im so mad and upset because black ops 1 did had some nice weapons and thought perhaps some where added but i guess not or some new weapis..but i guess a game will never be that 100 perfect..more guns equals more fun 🙁

  • any one who thinks that ram is stopping them from putting out more weapons . is a dummy. simply bcoz ram stands for random access memory. it does not keep all the guns there at one time that’s on the hard drive not the ram. they can have over 100 guns on the game and still have memory left they can make 50 new maps for the game and still have memory.

  • any one who thinks that ram is stopping them from putting out more weapons . is a dummy. simply bcoz ram stands for random access memory. it does not keep all the guns there at one time that’s on the hard drive not the ram. they can have over 100 guns on the game and still have memory left they can make 50 new maps for the game and still have memory.

  • madio1234

    they need to add a .44 magnum to Black ops 2

  • boss

    no they need to start making new weapons for their latest games for black ops and modern warfare

  • Colton Smith

    Listen to you fuckin nerds and keyboard warriors going at it over a game….

  • Andrew Martimez

    I actually haven’t even used the new DLC weapon. That’s how bored the multiplayer got. Dust is a free to play shooting game that surpasses call of duty 🙂

  • When partaking in get house for money programs, it’s
    imperative to try to to your prep. sadly, there ar unscrupulous folks out there
    UN agency earn a living by preying on desperate folks. There ar many ways to
    work out if an organization or land skilled is working a legitimate business.