Activision’s Dan Amrich posted in his One of Swords blog that two million users have signed up Call of Duty: Elite‘s beta, who said the number “blew his mind” when “they hit that number in less than two weeks. That should give the dev team at Beachhead plenty to work with to kick off the beta, which officially starts July 14.”
“The official start of the beta is a month away, so there’s still plenty of time for you to sign up. When the studio head at Beachhead said this would be a live beta, he was not kidding — your participation really can make a difference in how Elite evolves,” added Amrich, “And don’t be discouraged by the big number, thinking you shouldn’t bother because they already have enough people — two million volunteers among 30 million Call of Duty players is a small amount. More would be even better. Once you’ve signed up, just watch your email inbox for an invite.”
The 2M beta applications aren’t necessarily an endorsement for Elite. Rather, users are probably curious to see the beta and if it pleases them. The paid subscription portion reportedly only represents 10% of Elite, anyway, and is aimed at more “professional” and “hardcore” gamers, aka clans.
Users can apply for the beta here.
@New Mass Effect 3 multiplayer rumors arise:
Jonah, I see what you mean. Co-op is the better kind of MP for a game that is thick on story. The alternative would be an MMO, but I believe that will require a lot more time to wrap up.
@Bethesda says Xbox 720 three years away:
Dunno. From a technical point of view, the components to make it already exist. So I am siding with Jonah, and say 2012.
Another reason for delays is shipping Windows 8. If MSFT wants to ship both Win 8 and the new console, then I can see the console being delayed by Win 8.
@QOTW:
Don’t think they qualify as board games, but: backgammon, remi.
I just wanted to weigh in on the console launch argument. Firstly, the N64 launched at $200, not $150. Secondly, I don’t believe inflation adjustment is a useful concept when thinking of the historic nature of console launches because the prices are fairly similar across time (for example the Atari 2600 was $200 in 1977 – same as the N64 nearly 20 years later).
Of course, historically, there have been expensive game consoles such as the Neo-Geo or the 3DO, but these were more boutique, high end machines. I think it is useful to compare the launch of the PS3 to these consoles. This was the mistake Sony made with the machine’s launch: They tried to sell a high end machine to a mass market that wasn’t willing to pay the high cost. I for one waited 3 years until it was finally at the same price the PS2 launched at. I considered that the effective launch of the console.
As with any piece of technology (unless it’s made by Apple) one can wait a certain amount of time for the product to come down in price to where the consumer is comfortable with the cost. Expecting a console to launch at $100, however, is unreasonable. This has not ever happened with the launch of any home console that I am aware of and certainly could not be done without a severe loss to the manufacturer on each unit. That being said, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a new console to launch at $200-$300 dollars, even in the HD/3D/recession era we live in now.
Regarding the possibility of an Xbox 360 successor in 2012: I believe this is highly possible. I hardly think it would be “too soon” at that point considering the console will have been out for 7 years. In historic terms, this would be considered a long cycle. I think Microsoft may be weary of putting out a console too hastily considering that the 360 came out only 4 years after the original Xbox, and they really seem to be pushing their Kinect as an extension of the lifespan of the console, but a 7 year run seems quite reasonable to me. Also, it would be a prime opportunity to sucker punch the Nintendo Wii U and possibly get an early lead on the next console war.