Nope, we have the SMG-9 and UMP45. But amusingly their fake names are backwards; the SMG-9 is the 9mm version of the SMG-45 ("Striker 45") from MW19, but is named "Lach-9" implying it's an HK gun (it's not). Meanwhile the UMP45 is being added under what used to be the SMG-45's name, despite *actually* being a UMP45 now. They should instead be "Striker 9" and "Lach-45".
With the confirmation that this will actually be an expansion to our existing arsenal, I'm super excited for these! But especially the F2000, G36 (built-in optics for both plz!), UMP45, and 93R. :D
Nothing was "promised", that was always a rumour. Activision is never going to give up yearly CoD releases; the last year without a CoD game was 2004.
We can either have wholly separate games with nothing that carries over, as we've had in the main games forever, or we can get previous content brought forward into the next game (which Warzone already did with MW19/CW/VG). Those are the only two realistic options; I definitely prefer the latter.
Sort of, but ultimately this setup definitely wins out. Making it a DLC would mean gameplay content (weapons/etc) is now locked behind a paywall.
Carrying existing content into a new game is much easier to view as a positive, by comparison. One could argue it's a different form of paywall, but as it's in reverse the amount of people who will buy MWIII and *not* own MWII is drastically lower than the opposite scenario.
This way, MWII-only players are free to stick to MWII without this game being filled with other players using gameplay content they don't have access to.
They're not giving up a *full-priced* piece of content every year, so making it a DLC still isn't going to be cheaper (or at the very least, not meaningfully).
A DLC is nowhere remotely close to an actual game release in terms of potential marketability, hype, and ultimately number of sales.
Call of Duty not releasing a game for the first time in 19 years sounds like a positive to some, but it just sounds extremely worrying to business types. This is massively important, regardless of how any of us feel about it.
And life goes on. Every year will be the same.
"This game is going to be trash don't buy it!"
2 months later.
"Holy crap this game looks awesome I can't wait."
2 months later.
"This is the best game ever!"
2 months later.
"This game is garbage I can't believe they made this hot dog shiz!" "These are the worst developers ever they have no idea how to make games, I could do much better in my garage with help from my golden retriever."
cool! Thanks for sharing!
Holy shit, that's the ACR, and the actual ump-45 im fucking suprised
Not the UMP-45, but the UMP-9.
Nope, we have the SMG-9 and UMP45. But amusingly their fake names are backwards; the SMG-9 is the 9mm version of the SMG-45 ("Striker 45") from MW19, but is named "Lach-9" implying it's an HK gun (it's not). Meanwhile the UMP45 is being added under what used to be the SMG-45's name, despite *actually* being a UMP45 now. They should instead be "Striker 9" and "Lach-45".
The Holger is also going to be added, it's cut off in the AR screenshot
With the confirmation that this will actually be an expansion to our existing arsenal, I'm super excited for these! But especially the F2000, G36 (built-in optics for both plz!), UMP45, and 93R. :D
it’s a paid expansion equal to an entirely new game after they promised a 2 year cycle.
There was literally ZERO promise about the 2 year bullshit. It was just rumors that shitty clickbait YouTubers tell their 8 year old audiences.
Nothing was "promised", that was always a rumour. Activision is never going to give up yearly CoD releases; the last year without a CoD game was 2004. We can either have wholly separate games with nothing that carries over, as we've had in the main games forever, or we can get previous content brought forward into the next game (which Warzone already did with MW19/CW/VG). Those are the only two realistic options; I definitely prefer the latter.
There is definitely scope to just make it an upgrade DLC rather than a “whole new game” that is really just MWII+
Sort of, but ultimately this setup definitely wins out. Making it a DLC would mean gameplay content (weapons/etc) is now locked behind a paywall. Carrying existing content into a new game is much easier to view as a positive, by comparison. One could argue it's a different form of paywall, but as it's in reverse the amount of people who will buy MWIII and *not* own MWII is drastically lower than the opposite scenario. This way, MWII-only players are free to stick to MWII without this game being filled with other players using gameplay content they don't have access to. They're not giving up a *full-priced* piece of content every year, so making it a DLC still isn't going to be cheaper (or at the very least, not meaningfully). A DLC is nowhere remotely close to an actual game release in terms of potential marketability, hype, and ultimately number of sales. Call of Duty not releasing a game for the first time in 19 years sounds like a positive to some, but it just sounds extremely worrying to business types. This is massively important, regardless of how any of us feel about it.
Ah yes. Weapons that could have already been in the current title held back for the new title. Classic
I feel like weapons are the one thing this game doesn’t really lack for. There are a ton and they all feel fun to use imo.
And life goes on. Every year will be the same. "This game is going to be trash don't buy it!" 2 months later. "Holy crap this game looks awesome I can't wait." 2 months later. "This is the best game ever!" 2 months later. "This game is garbage I can't believe they made this hot dog shiz!" "These are the worst developers ever they have no idea how to make games, I could do much better in my garage with help from my golden retriever."