Call of Duty Dev Commits to Sensible Skins in Black Ops 7 Following Strong Community Backlash

Still can't take that guy from Heroes seriously as a bulked up soldier. Guy doesn't even look like that in real life.

Sure they will...... the bottom picture clearly shows this is not the case

Who says it doesnt work when the consumer put its foot down.

Battlefield has got them scared

A storm ina tea cup this is and people moan about realism and emersion but if I get shot in the head twice it doesn't just magically heal because I hide behind a barrel for a minute or two haha it's a videogame people it's not meant to be real life!
It's just the world these days everyone is dying to be offended or outraged by anything and everything!!✌️

Battlefield 6 player numbers concerned them a bit.

Nothing like healthy competition to ensure quality.

Somehow they spin players feedback into a way to earn more money..............

I don't know why they cannot just have a setting that would hide other players skins, but still show yours (to you). That way people can look as silly as they want to themselves, but not break the immersion of other players...

@Jammer he looks fine. An absolute non-issue.

They also said the same about Black Ops 6 and look how that turned out. The skins don't bother me that much it's some of the tracer effects that make it hard to see what's going on.

Yeah orite, says the company that is tied to a trillion dollar company that will do anything it can due to it wanting more money because business is business.

I'll never forget that cool trailor and such for Black Ops 6 with the firestarter song by the prodigy which had Saddam, Thatcher, Reagan and Clinton show in them but as the game came out it barely had any links to it and than you get the multiplayer.

They will still do it 100%

Teddy Roosevelt, Elvira and snoopy will be wearing only period accurate uniforms in codblops7 out of respect for the men and women who complained online 🫡

Too late. (Comment too short).

@Flaming_Kaiser I think is Battlefield 6 shaking them up and not consumers.

It's 2016 all over again where COD was too futuristic/silly and BF was more grounded/authentic. The cycle starts again.

I don't want to see Cartoon (Beavis/Butthead, American Dad) style skins that are a completely different Artstyle to the rest of the game - same goes for the Cel-shaded type designs as these too contrast too much with the more realistic type rendering.

I don't have as much of an issue with the other cosmetics, inc the Turtles because these at least use the same artstyle - even if they aren't Mil-sim or realistic style outfits. But its more the clash of Artsyles that I draw the line.

Of course they'll still need to make skins that SELL to pay for Warzone and all the post launch Seasonal content - Maps, modes, weapons, etc are ALL FREE because they are funded by a F2P business model. If their skins don't sell enough, then the 'Free' content will suffer!!

They have to sell Cosmetics to fund all the F2P elements - otherwise these will end up disappearing to a Paid model (again in the case of MP/Zombies Maps, weapons etc as these traditionally were sold as DLC).

I just hope we don't get contrasting artstyles as its gnerally those in particular that generate the most 'hate'. I do hope they offer more Military based options too, but as long as we don't get 'Cartoon/cel-shaded' cosmetics, that's where my tolerance is tested...

I want shooters to go back to the R6 Vegas style of visual customization: let me pick and choose boots, legs, torso, upper arm, lower, helmet, etc. Make my kit MY kit. I want to show off MY favorite look and feel.

Sell skins, sure. But let users buy them and, essentially, break them apart to customize themselves top to bottom. Waaaaaaay more self expression is available that way.

Battlefield 6 and those weaker pre order numbers have them panicking.

This is almost certainly a confirmation of the weak pre-order numbers

@Fiendish-Beaver Because that's a bad idea that devalues costumes, stifles expression, and wouldn't even stop the Internet from complaining. It wouldn't even matter that you can still see your costume, since this is a 1st-person game.

@Jammer it’s actually the dad from This Is Us. If you watched that show, you’ll see him play a different kind of hero.

@RoomWithaMoose all of this! I hate in first person games when they have you design your character and put all this cool stuff on them, just to see it every so often in a cutscene. Also, COD is the most commercialized franchise in gaming. It’s been ridiculous since after the first Modern Warfare. But I guess celebrity hate is where the ridiculousness draws the line.

It's quite funny to see people buying DLC skins for a FPS where 99% of their playing time they didn't see the skins they bought outside the customization, matchmaking screen, and a very short cutscene 😂

Hmm, methinks this is actually...a BAD thing. Just shows the wrapped priorities of people when they frame the removal of a common franchise feature as being pro-consumer.

I fully expect an outcry in the opposite direction when the game launches and millions realize they can't use their go-to, 'paid real money for' Warzone drip.

@AhmadSumadi Yeah, I don't understand why people suddenly think the glowy-gun, 360-no scope game is some sacred bastion of grit.

Even seeing people criticize Blops7's trailer because "zombies and robots are at odds with the series' identity." Like, have y'all not been aware of Call of Duty since CoD 3? This IS its identity.

I understand the bit about making it worthless for the masses, and the thought did occur to me when I wrote my original comment, @RoomWithaMoose, and because I don't play the games, it didn't occur to me that it was in first person. However, I would imagine that not everyone would turn the setting on, meaning that if you didn't you would still see the wacky costumes, and still be seen. I don't think everyone would use the setting, so having a skin would still have some value.

What I would say though, is whilst I understand your point, if you want that sense of realism in your game, then having Beavis and Butthead running around would soon break that immersion, and I guess you have to cater to their views too...

@Fiendish-Beaver I know you weren't suggesting everyone would have such a setting on. But that doesn't really change anything I said.

My primary argument against this discourse is that, if people want a realistic military shooter, they've come to the wrong place. Getting rid of a few silly skins that the average player sees maybe once every 5 matches doesn't change that.

I don't care about these shooter multiplayer games, but if main topic of it are skins then it must be very boring...

This doesn't sound like listening - it sounds like an excuse to not carry over skins so people have to buy them or similar again. The only thing they count is money, not feedback.

I think people just want the old school cod back and you can't blame us, realistically though there's no chance. Sucks but it's to far gone. It's not just skins it's weapon packs, 2/3 battle passes each season and mini battle passes in between. They fire out a different Meta gun packs every 2 weeks with updates it seems. Then there's the skins, seems like there's at least one every week probably more. So for me it's how much resources are being used to produce all of that and not on the game? It's obvious that it is more important than the actual game to them. If anything the game suffers because they mess about with the stats of weapons so they can constantly sell meta weapon packs. Sucks lol.

“Ahead of the release of Black Ops 6, Activision announced that content from Modern Warfare 2 and 3 wouldn’t carry forward to the new game. At the time, they said that it was done to allow players to “experience the Black Ops universe the way it’s meant to be played.”

Again, it’s understandable. But then, it only took a few months before Black Ops 6 became filled with operators and skins such as Beavis and Butt-head, Jay and Silent Bob, Stan Smith, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and more. All done in the name of, apparently, “keeping that signature Black Ops style.”

Their previous history says a lot🤑🤑🤑🤑👀

Anyone foolish enough to buy into this and give them your money thinking they aren’t gonna put more daft collaboration skins in the game needs their head looked at. This game is a skin store now. That’s it. Without that they have another cookie cutter call of duty game. The days of decent call of duty games are long gone folks. If you want that go with Battlefield. Sad but true.

The skins I meet are never sensible.

Still not buying this crap.

@Stevey_Mac 100%. First time in a few years I’m not getting COD.

Black Ops 7 from what I've seen is basically Black Ops 3.

Would love it if emblems and calling cards carried forward but I doubt that will happen.....

@BAMozzy

Great point! Thatzmy biggest issue too and the reason for Beavis&Butthead got the biggest backlash.

@Scottyy The Cel-shaded stuff has been in CoD a few years now and I really don't like that artstyle but it seemed the Community accepted it and even saw some Cel-shaded LTM's and Maps too - but there wasn't too much 'Backlash' so I can see why they thought they could get popular Cartoon Collabs to sell.

Whilst I don't really want to see Cartoons (or Cel-shaded) characters, even the glowing, bright and crazy outfits - inc the Blackcell versions - are very easy to see. Its the dark skins that are the most difficult to see and I'd rather my enemies were using Beavis/Butthead skins than Terminator, Groot, Rose skins that are impossible to see in shadowed areas.

At least these Skins are not conducive to a 'Camping' type Playstyle - unlike Dark skins and Ghillie suits that allow people to hide in plain sight.

I don't think they'll stop doing 'Blackcell' style Skins that are completely unrealistic and certainly wouldn't work in a 'Mil-sim' game as these Sell - I just don't think they'll do 2D Cartoon art in a 3D more realistic art game. If Beavis/Butthead had been made in the same artstyle as Terminator or Replacer or Squid Game or Seth Rogan or their 'default' Characters, I doubt they'd have had ANY backlash, and those BO6 Skins/weapons etc would carry over into BO7 like MW2's did for MW3 that people were happy about - especially as MW3 launch content was very 'light' compared to MW2 and a 'year' of extra content arriving.

@BAMozzy

That's the main success of Fortnite. All additions feels like belonging to that world.

@Scottyy Exactly - it doesn't matter what Characters they collaborate with, they are all created with the same 'Fortnite' Artstyle so don't have that Clash.

As long as CoD sticks to the same Artstyle, I beleive the vast majority will tolerate the Skins. There will be some that think certain characters or designs still don't belong - like the Animal heads, Nikki Minaj, glowing Dragon skins etc...

@TheArt Its the customers if nobody is buying BF6 then COD wont change and who the BF sales where probably down so they had to shift to quality. So yes its the paying customers that made them chance.

@BAMozzy Who cares what you dont mind. There are probably enough players that make them pivot and their idea. We all know they are lying at MS they will introduce them further down the line anyway and say there was demand.