Modern Warfare 2 VS Bad Company 2...the debate continues

So with Halo being basically a non-issue in the FPS battleground, the debate rages on as to which MMO shooter people are spending their time (and money) on. With that in mind, I'll toss my hat into the debate yet again.

I'm far from a fanboy, but apparently my point of view is such that people will say I am to negate the points I make. Be that as it may, I love giving my opinion and I really don't give a shit if it gets your panties in a knot. Deal with it.

I was one of those freaks who was eagerly anticipating the release of Modern Warfare 2. While I wasn't in line for the release, I did head out and pick-up my pre-ordered copy after work. I, like many, really enjoy playing online rather than by myself. When people ask why, I often ask them if masturbation is better than sex and just leave the argument there. Some people just prefer the former and who am I to judge. As I was saying, I went out and got my copy and played through the story...which thankfully wasn't long.

Of course, after that it was time to test my skills online. I don't have much in the way of skills for many reasons, though chiefly among them is that I just don't care to be 'the_pwnage' (you get bonus points for knowing that reference). But, I do enjoy playing online and usually end up with a positive kill/death ratio.

At this point, Bad Company 2 had been announced and was being highly anticipated by many who wanted a new first person shooter to play online. BC2 was smart, they allowed vehicles and created large sprawling maps. Where they dropped the ball was variety though. There was essentially 2 maps and 2 styles of game, advancing your abilities by way of levels and usage was painstakingly slow as well.

Activision then came out with downloadable content for MW2 and created a hurricane of controversy. It was one of the most expensive add-ons for a console game since the failed Nintendo Power Glove. Many gamers were outraged that the map pack cost $15 for 3 new maps and 2 maps from Modern Warfare 1. Many, rightly so, feared that this would create a new baseline for downloadable content and all game producers would increase the price of their content.

The MW2 downloadble map pack did 2.5 million units in sales anyway, proving that the demand was such that the price didn't drive them away. Regardless, hardline gamers have stuck to their guns and remained in the minority. Some have moved to BC2, while others are waiting for a half-price weekend to pick-up their MW2 map pack. Either way, the battle for players between the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises continues.

Call of Duty now has MW: Black Ops. If the YouTube trailer I posted last week is any indication, it looks like Activision and Trey Arch have responded by offering everything BC2 does. Now, the question becomes this; Does Battlefield come out with a new game to compete right off the bat, or do they release a map pack to keep their loyal fans? If BC3 comes out, will it be worth the price tag, or just be a collection of new maps and guns? If they come out with a map pack, will they price themselves at Activision's level, or go lower to really stick it to the monster video game producer?

Time will tell.

But you don't read this blog to see politically correct answers like that, do you?

Of course not.

You read blogs for honest opinions from douchebags like me. If you want PC bullshit, go read your local nationally syndicated rags.

Here's what's going to happen. Keep in mind that I love capitalism. I do think it goes way too far sometimes. There are a plethora of examples of this; big oil and health care insurers just to name a couple. But video games seem to have tried to copy this ridiculous mold. Offering a standard map pack for an inflated price, releasing sequels with ill conceived plots (ahem...Left 4 Dead 2) to 'strike while the irons hot'...the examples are many and varied.

Ok...enough rant. Here's what's going to happen. Battlefield will release a map pack, probably just adding one map. The map pack will include some new guns, a new gameplay mode...or two, and that's about it. They're going to charge the 'standard' $10 for that, except that there's one problem; they didn't really do anything. BC2 producers have already gone on record stating that there was another map, it just had too many bugs to release with the game. They've also teased new guns with their loadout screens and blogs of their staff. So essentially, BC2 had a standard price tag at launch for an unfinished game and now...for another $10, you can have the whole game.

Of course, no one will draw attention to this because of two things.

1 - Gamers hate Activision and Electronic Arts. Always have, always will. Their reasons are sound, both companies have a long history of releasing game series and just updating graphics engines or team rosters...and charging it out as a whole new game rather than just DLC for the new roster. The irony is that both games come from those producers...but I guess they hate Activision just a little bit more.

2 - Battlefield is the 'little franchise that could'. Gamers have flocked to them as a sound competition to the Call of Duty franchise and Battlefield makes far less mistakes than CoD does.

Of course, all these things will be glossed over by the slobbering masses who love to hate big companies and yet always seem to find a reason to part with their cash to support them. For shame haters. For shame.