(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Here's a question for you if black ops was the exact same but with EA and on dedicated servers (so just fixes lag) do you think it would be better?

I agree with you so far the MOH "MP" was the biggest disappointment of the year they should have just called it BFBC 2.5 .....LOL Back on topic I have said it before and I will say it again I would love to see what a studio like NAUGHTY DOG could do with a big backing for a FPS I mean they have there Naughty Dog Engine 2 which is amazing and early next year we get to see what Crytek will bring to the table with CRYSIS 2. I don't know why EA is so hated though ehhh I guess it's just one of those things.

I'm sorry, but if I had the resources, money and time treyarch had, then I would be embarrassed to release Black Ops the way they did on November 9th (all the issues, especially on PS3)

For the PS3 version, they should still be embarrassed lol

I need to make this clear, Treyarch don't have a server they use Activison's, that's the whole point of a publisher ... Activision have 2 server's; PS3 and Xbox server's, they need 2 otherwise people would be getting into game's with people from a different console.
But; The PS3 server is SHIT. I hate it, to much lag, the 360 one is fine tbf, you get the odd lag every 10 games or so, but no were near PS3 lag.

So i wish everyone would stop bashing Treyarch and saying they done shit, it's Activision's PS3 server's that are pissing you off, not Treyarch's. ( They don't have one anyway )

I think treyarch did a fine job, and the game is amazing in every single way. There may be a few extra thing's they could do, but just stop your bitching and play it and have fun.

You do make a valid poit but ACTIVISION owns DEMON-WARE who hosted the servers for MW2 and we beleive are hosting the servers now so while it may be out of 3ARC's hands the PS3 version of B.O. is running @ 39-40 FPS while XBOX 360 almost runs @ a constant 60FPS you gotta admit that's a big problem 3ARC has failed to correct and at this point who knows if it's even correctable. :bro:

yer ea cant make shooting games that why they make fifa instead lol

You know when they say "Black Ops reached record sellings" That means that a shit load of people bought the game. Most likely more than they had thought. And of course there are going to be a load of glitches in it. Every single tiny thing you add to a game can cause a crap load of glitches. Everyone says "You should add this and this." and then complain when it doesn't work the way you wanted it to work. I would understand if your were mad because something that they did in the other game was still glitchy, but the only things that are glitchy, are the new things. Combat training, host migration, clan tag editor, new zombie maps. All of those are new. Of course there's going to be glitches with them. Notice how there aren't any elevators? Notice how create a class works? These are all old things. Everyone should either stop complaining, or stop asking for new things.

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------



Agreed, but the only reason why PS3 servers are so bad is because Activison has probably received some donations from Microsoft and PS3 can't afford to do that because our online is free.

EA didn't make Medal of Honor. Dice made the multiplayer (which I assume is what you are complaining about). EA only published the game, which means they had no part in the production. If they would have published Black Ops the game would have been no different from what it is now, aside from possibly having better servers.

For all of you complaining that Black Ops servers are shit for ps3, the most likely reason for this is underestimation. When Activision sets up servers for a game, they have to predict how many people will be playing the game. I am quite sure that they would have went based off of MW2's average players online. As 360 typically had over a million users on MW2, they probably accounted for that when they set up 360's servers, and thus have servers that can handle a couple million players. When looking at ps3 numbers from MW2, I am sure they noticed how few players there were compared to 360. Ps3 averaged about 200,000 users at any given point, and at night that number would often be cut in half. For this reason, Activision most likely thought that this would be a similar trend in Black Ops and didn't account for the massively growing fan base to the Call of Duty series and the possibility of 100's of thousands of new users coming to the ps3. There are currently almost 600,000 users on ps3 playing Black Ops, almost triple that of what was on Mw2 at any given moment. For these reasons and more, Activision does not have adequate servers for the ps3. It is possible that Activision may ignore the poor servers and just assume that the game will calm down in a few weeks and go back to about that of Mw2. It is also possible that they may be trying to give us better servers at this very moment. Only time can tell what will happen. Until then, just stop complaining and play the game as it is or go play one of the 3 other Call of Duty's on ps3. There are still plenty of people on them and their servers will be relatively lag free. Just play for fun and stop worrying about all these small details.

How can you have dedicated servers for console...wouldn't people have to buy them? I just don't understand why people say we need dedicated servers for console. I usually have a good ping anyway when I search local.

well ea lets you play music while in game :y: