{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/30/2014 7:15:22 PM
2
Destiny is not COD, and as such cost comparison is just justified. It's comparing apples with oranges. Given they're different fruits, a pound of apple is not the same as a pound of oranges even if they cost the same. In my opinion oranges are tastier.
Kidding aside, CoD is a cookie cutter game with a new game every year, with an obvious emphasis on PvP, and has a reputation of being more or less the same games every iteration just with graphics and sight gameplay enhancements. You can almost say that each new game is basically a $60 standalone DLC with a new 6hr campaign, new guns and 10 new maps. There are many opinions about the CoD and Battlefield franchise, but I won't go into that here. Destiny is simply not this and has never been about this, and I never want Destiny's monetary model to come anywhere close to EA's or Activision's money sucking black hole.
English
-
I hate to break it to you, but Destiny is produced by Activision, just like Call of Duty. So when I make those comparisons, the games may be different, but I'm comparing amount of content/value. I think this is a totally acceptable comparison. Every person is going to value PvP or PvE, or strategy, puzzle solving, or role playing differently, but all games have one thing in common.....how much value do I get for my $$$. It doesn't matter what genre of game we compare. We could look at Skyrim and Mario and figure out average value/$. I chose COD because it would be a commonly known quantity for most people on this forum and is produced by the same company as Destiny
-
[quote]Destiny is not COD, and as such cost comparison is just justified. [/quote] I meant not* justified
