PS3 News: When And How Will Call Of Duty Get A New Engine? - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

When And How Will Call Of Duty Get A New Engine?

It's just one of those questions that suddenly hits you. And your answer usually is something like, "oh yeah...how's that gonna actually happen?"

As we all know, Call of Duty has been using the same engine for almost six years now. The competition - namely, DICE and EA - used that lagging to their advantage by continually promoting the fancy Frostbite 2 engine for Battlefield 3.

Now, granted, I think Infinity Ward and Treyarch have managed to get a tremendous amount of mileage out of that engine; it isn't like they never upgraded or refined it. IW really managed to make a great game with Modern Warfare 3 and most critics and gamers would agree with that. However, even the most ardent CoD fans would love to see a new engine for their beloved franchise. It could really make the series shine as bright - if not brighter - than Battlefield. But wait...don't we have a vicious circle here? A Catch .22 of sorts?

It takes time to develop a new engine. Activision would never want CoD to miss a year; the publisher wants its annual billion-dollar payday. So, if they request a new title every twelve months, how will we ever get a new engine? Will it finally get so old that even Activision is forced to take a year off? Or maybe they'll just assign development of that new engine to the "other" CoD team. In other words, maybe they'll tell Infinity Ward to create that new engine while Treyarch works on the next CoD.

Essentially, each developer has two years to make a CoD, not one. So maybe that's the way it's going to happen. But for some reason, I get this sneaking suspicion that we're going to have to wait even longer...perhaps even until the next console generation. I mean, it's not like they're losing sales because of an old engine. So if they keep breaking records, why bother, right?

Related Game(s): Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Tags: mw3, modern warfare 3, mw3 used, activision

11/15/2011 12:23:33 AM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (43 posts)

dkmrules
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 12:53:35 AM
Reply

If I had to guess, I would say with the next generation of consoles.

If they could pull of some form of "future warfare" that would be pretty cool, I for one am getting tired of modern warfare

Last edited by dkmrules on 11/15/2011 12:55:06 AM

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

H0TSHELLZ
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 @ 11:24:21 AM

I would say Next Gen because first i know it takes time to create the a new engine, then you need to test and try to break the "Engine". But for me a DIE HARD FAN of the series I REALLY DONT MIND because it still looks better than most games coming out after it.

I AM WISHING FOR A COD ON PS VITA !!!!!!!!!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TrophyHunter
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 @ 4:38:31 PM

H0TSHELLZ: "...it still looks better than most games coming out after it"

Really???, respect your likes but everything in CoD looks so generic for my eyes.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mr Bubbles IGR
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 12:53:51 AM
Reply

Don't fix something that's not broken.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 16 down Disagree with this comment

kevinater321
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 7:51:38 AM

More like update something that is out of date.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Mr Bubbles IGR
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 7:52:44 AM

exactly ^_^ but since they're making so much bank why change a winning formula? The fans don't seem to care that its "outdated."

Last edited by Mr Bubbles IGR on 11/15/2011 7:53:07 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 8:04:20 AM

They need to update it that's for sure. And patch some things as well.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 8:39:06 AM

Got quick scope glitched once last night... party got broken up at least 5 times over 2 hours... host migration takes a million years to realize the host is a bad one...

There's still plenty broken. It's a great game, but I don't see how the same issues can pop up over and over, year after year, and these technical issues never get fixed. The veteran difficulty still has opponents with god-like aim with guns that lack the ability to be accurate from extreme distances. And with constant never ending enemies if you never move up, you can't progress the way you want to. You have to play the way the game wants you to play it.

I don't get the 9+ scores. Solid 8+, maybe...

Agree with this comment 3 up, 5 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 11:28:58 AM

MW3 is a 9+ game for certain, it deserves more than an 8. The veteran difficulty is meant to be outrageous. It's not meant to be some form of realistic entertainment. In fact I'll go even further and say MW strives off it's over the top action. Meaning realism is not a main concern in the series.

But everything except the engine is improved upon in MW3. The MP is far far deeper, the campaign is longer and more enjoyable, and the spec ops and survival is ridiculously fun. The game may still need some polish and a new engine but it's definitely the best in the series.

The servers still need some help but I've actually had little issues with MW3, I still think they need to go dedicated. The host migration is still an issue when some poor sport has a terrible k/d ratio and quits but, all in all it's been stable this go round.

The quick scope glitch isn't really a glitch either. It's people taking advantage of the auto aim. If you can get it down it's a lot of fun. I do it at times, but even with that said, my side arm is still a preferable means of Close quarter combat. When I snipe I actually like to snipe. The maps in MW3 are a little confined for that though.

Last edited by bigrailer19 on 11/15/2011 11:33:33 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 12:14:47 PM

no.

That's a cop out excuse for the difficulty, Bigrailer. Total cop out. It's lazy development. Make the AI smarter, throw in more enemies, add more explosive power from enemies, and make your character die faster... kind of like Uncharted does. I'm not asking for absolute realism, but I don't think an uzi from 5 football fields away should be able to smoke me like they're a sniper. There are a million other ways to add to the difficulty besides simply making you die faster and acting like a bullet magnet. It's either lazy or uninspired development.

As for the auto-aim malfunction, it is a glitch. Watch the kill cam. You can see the bullet fired hitting background behind the player "shot" no-where near the actual target. Snipers are not designed for run and gunners who only need to master the skill of timing their aiming with their firing. Modern Warfare 2 and CoD4 are completely broken and nearly unplayable now due to the community being able to exploit the development flaws.

Host migration lags because of someone quitting, sure, but it also has a terrible time measuring ping. It's designed to migrate hosts when the host has inadequate internet to provide fluid gameplay. The game will allow you to play up to 5 minutes, sometimes, in laggy conditions before it realizes, "Oh shite, I need to change up the host!" Additionally, it's unable to back it up to common point by pulling on the memory of all players by only caring what the NEW host thought was happening.

The multiplayer class system is hardly "vastly improved". It seems that way... why... because now you can level up your weapons? You ALWAYS COULD! Unlocking an attachment has always been made possible by getting kills with that same gun. Perks level up the same way, too. The only new advancement is the ability for bad players to rack up killstreaks to support their teammates. Special ops is hardly an improvement, either. They just added their own version of zombies and called it "survival mode".

The game is all flash and no substance. It's fun with friends, but that's it. How it can be compared with other 9+ games on the market like God of War, Halo, Gears of War, Heavy Rain, Uncharted 1 2 and 3, LBP, and other incredible titles, is beyond me.

People are more than welcome to love this game to death, as far as I'm concerned, but it's annoying when people pretend it's issues are supposed to be there. It's pure denial.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 12:35:05 PM

@Underdog

Agreed. Especially getting shot from way across the map by an SMG, shouldn't happen I don't care what difficulty it's on.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 1:20:48 PM

Ok so we agree to disagree I'm happy with it your not.

The difficulty does need work I'm not denying any of that I'm really just saying, these games are some of the hardest games out there on veteran, regardless if it's because your getting shot with an Uzi from a Mile away or not. I'm ok with it, I don't have a problem with it, and I can still play it on veteran. It gives me a challenge which is probably why I like it. Most FPS to le are just way to easy, and regenerating health is the main reason for that.

I play MW3 quite a bit, not as much as the other MW games but enough to see a quick scope kill cam. Although I don't always agree with what happened on screen, I know because I personally quick scope, that when your crosshairs (from the hip) are not lined up you won't hit someone. That bullet hitting the ground away from you could be from lag. The kill cam is kind of a truth, I don't know how many times I've been running to cover make it but still die and the kill cam show me to never have made it to cover. I don't know if that IW's fault or the hosts but in the defense of the quick scope sometimes it's lag. But other times you maybe right, maybe it should be considered a glitch. I dont know, frankly don't care either. I know how to counter those guys n I try not to get in a snipers cross hairs anyways, those .50 cals will tear you up.

Yes the game is deeper, I'm not talking about just the classes being deeper either. Btw separating the guns leveling and player leveling was a great improvement wether you agree or not. Because now you actually have to use your weapon efficiently to unlock things, rather than just using it and leveling your character. There is more balance. I see what your saying yes you always could, but it's definitely more balanced. There's no ability for bad players to rack up killstreaks either. If you can't get kill streaks you won't get rewarded. But what they did adding the 3 killstreaks packages was great, and it offers more ways to play.

Finally the survival mode is necessary for MW to keep up with zombies. Is zombies more difficult? yes (in many cases), is it more fun? Yes ( again to an extent). Is it more original? Absolutely. But what separates the two is all the weapon options, all the perks, all the weapon upgrades, and killstreaks you can purchase with the money you make, really adds a lot of diversity to the game mode. The great thing is these upgrades aren't available unless your get to a certain level, meaning there's tons of longevity. I'll be honest, you may not like it, but my buddies n I are playing the Sh** out of it. It's FUN! It may not be original but it's fun! I'll say the same about spec ops.

Listen I've been pretty vocal about how much I like these games. I'll be the first to admit there does need to be some upgrades and change made, but that doesn't take away from how fun they are. They mostly are the same game every time and well you know what your gonna get. I think there in lies the problem an I'll admit that. But MW3 improved the campaign, the mp is deeper and spec ops is fun for me. So yeah to me the game should be awarded fr what it's done.

But this is just me. What everyone else thinks is fine. But I'll say this. Does the game have issues? Of course. Should they be fixed? Absolutely. But does the game accomplish what it set out to and supply endless amounts of gameplay in an appealing way? Sure. That's a good game to me.



Last edited by bigrailer19 on 11/15/2011 1:24:22 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 2:38:38 PM

That's fair. On the topic of leveling guns, though, that's not what I meant. Yes it's good to have the differentiation, but it's still the same as before.

You still level up your main level to unlock new guns, but you always had to become more proficient and rack up kills with, say, a Scar-H, in order to get more attachments for the Scar-H. It's just a different way of presenting the leveling making it more obvious. But it's essentially the same leveling system.

I don't find the CoD games to be especially difficult on veteran. Just annoying. But quick-scoping gets especially frustrating when it's through a wall. In MW2, I have been quickscoped through a wood wall because the auto aim picks up on where I am. Not even kidding... I've seen snipers quick scoping sides of buildings to see if they can root people out. That's not even in the cross-hairs.

And ya know, if people only quick scoped as a last resort... like when they get caught off guard... as opposed to relying on it for all their cheap kills... then I'm ok with it. It just bugs me when the game ends up not being played the way it's meant to be played. Community can cause a perfectly good game to break if it's not fool proof.

That's where I take issue with the developers... because it's not like these issues are unknown to them. I guess I just feel like the dev's don't care about high quality like other devs like Bungie or Naughty Dog care... So long as it doesn't affect the bottom line, why work on it? My personal feeling is that fixing it would force an overhaul of the aiming mechanics within the game engine.

At least, that's my best guess.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bigrailer19
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 4:31:04 PM

I think that's the big issue. So many people continue to buy and play the games, that maybe they are worried to change it up. That's definitely an issue and on the developers heads. I think quick scoping has become so common that IW doesn't feel fixing it would be beneficial as in it wouldn't make it better. Sure it's a neat way to get a kill, but what's the goal here? I don't know, and it's pretty apparent the quick scoping is frustrating for some, and for someone like me I don't care either way.

All in all, as I was saying, I think IW or maybe I should put more blame on Activision, are too afraid to change much.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 12:58:43 AM
Reply

When COD game sales start dipping, that's when.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

hadouken
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 1:06:55 AM
Reply

I doubt they change it anytime soon with all that $$ coming in.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AshT
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 1:09:16 AM
Reply

Yeah thats probably true, most probably we wont be seeing new engine till next gen.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Grandma Pantyho
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 1:44:29 AM
Reply

People are still content with the xbox and ps3's hardware. And the majority of gamers could care less whether or not CoD gets any improvement graphically or physically. Tweak the movements around and add a few new guns, add some minor differences and people are happy. When you think about it it doesn't take much for the average gamer to be happy. And to pay $60 a year for days of enjoyment is no price at all. I guess we few belonging in the minority who crave on innovation and creative new IP's have the loudest voices when you think about it. However, that doesn't matter because all corporations care about are the masses.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

main_event05
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 8:55:33 AM

Welcome to the Age of twitch gaming.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Godslim
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 @ 10:31:16 AM

i wouldnt call it twitch......more casual alot more people who dont play games are becoming casual gamers and like a easy game to pick up and play with friends

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dancemachine55
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 2:17:39 AM
Reply

Agree, until sales slip I don't think CoD is gonna need a new engine.

Mind you, I think MW3 is gonna be the last record breaking CoD since it is the last of the trilogy.

I guess sales of next year's CoD will determine whether the single player campaign was popular or not, with only CoD MP lovers getting the next one for their new map packs and modes fix.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

friction
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 7:05:14 AM

they're already calling it black ops 2.0... sounds fun...
A few of my die hard cod friends have actually started to complain about mw3, and how if they don't do something drastic to the series there's no way they're picking up another black ops game. Time will tell...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Oxvial
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 3:03:16 AM
Reply

Until people stop buying the franchise so much.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 3:35:52 AM
Reply

It won't be until the next console generation at least, but considering that could being in earnest as early as the end of next year... It could be sooner than we might expect. I suppose it also depends a little bit on how long it would take to develop a new engine. That being said though, it springs to mind that they might license a new engine, rather than creating one. I mean, Unreal 4? Cryengine? I don't know, what engines are out there to be licensed?

Although if they do it in-house, there is the possibility of having tech members from all of the CoD studios working on it together to build it quicker and make it compatible with all of the studios, rather than having the other one have to learn it from scratch. But we also can't count out Sledgehammer, who have announced that they want to stay in the series, thereby having three separate studios working on CoD, which obviously expands the dev time to every three years, and I suppose that a new engine could be built in that time with a new game after maybe an extra six months.

There isn't really any incentive for a new engine to be created when there are people out there that think, and I quote, that the graphics of Modern Warfare 3 "are awesome. Just unreal". I suppose this is the drones that make up the CoD audience though. They only look at it as the benchmark, ignoring the likes of KZ3, R@GE, Crysis 2 and BF3. They need to add extra gameplay functionality to the engine though. Pretty much all FPS developers do.

Shutting up now.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 3:43:46 AM

MW3 graphically isn't that much of an improvement on graphics, it's a bit better than the other CoD's but it's nothing special in my opinion.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 3:55:50 AM

Indeed, Clamedeus, but don't tell that to the bloke that I'm talking about. He got more than a little peeved by my laughing at that statement :)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 5:24:24 AM

Meh, what can you do. lol

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 6:39:13 AM

Lawless, i think they have started planning for a new engine; we just don't know it yet... surely, at this stage, it is very probable!

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ulsterscot
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 6:09:11 AM
Reply

gameplay over graphics for me - so far this year ive bought KZ3,Crysis2,Infamous2,Socom4,Homefront,Resistance 3,Gears of War3, Rage, BF3 and UC3 - with the exceptions of Homefront and Socom - all awesome games with fantastic graphics - UC3 takes 1st place campaign - easy - but MW3 is the most fun on line. It runs so smoothly and the razor sharp controls are a joy to use - its a seemless transition from COD4 - MW2 through to MW3. BF3 is also a fantastic game and Im using it to break up my MW3 sessions but the new engine while very pretty has a number of issues including rubber banding/controller lag, freezing on start up.

As fashionable as it is to be the kool kids and profess hatred of all things Call of Duty - the fact remains - it sells because the multiplayer is the most fun you can have with your clothes on and whether a new engine comes out before the current console generation expires won't matter to much to most fans so long as the games stay as addictive and pure fun as they have been since COD4.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 7:07:33 AM

MW3 Isn't issue free either.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 9:14:24 AM

Graphics are good enough for me, but it's the gameplay that annoys me. Same issues remain. And when issues are ignored, the community ruins the experience by exploiting the issues.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 10:16:59 AM

@Underdog

Indeed.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Kingharris
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 6:50:52 AM
Reply

It's pointless saying "graphics dont matter" the fact is gaming and technology advanced, in part so should the graphics. You cant be stuck with the same franchise that has made like $4billion in 5 years, its wrong. Other companies advanced their graphics supremely, whats Infinity Wards excuse?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kevinater321
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 7:52:33 AM
Reply

Maybe they can get the third COD team to make the engine while treyarch and infinity ward continue on the yearly iterations.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 11:44:07 AM
Reply

Fix the issue (Glitch/hackers) problems and give us the overpriced DLC for free, that pretty much sums it up for me.

Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 11/15/2011 11:45:08 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

redman479
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 12:54:44 PM
Reply

I haven't played COD since MW2 and by what I've read on different blogs and forums, nothings changed. I don't feel justified paying my $ for an inferior game. For those that love it have fun. I'll stick with BF3,UC3,KZ3, and MOH.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CrusaderForever
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 12:56:09 PM
Reply

CoD would really benefit from a new destruction oriented engine, similar to Frostbite 2. BF3 is so wide open there isn't as much chance to take advantage of the destructible properties of the Frostbite 2. In BFBC2 all I need to mention to BF fans is White Pass!!!!!!!!! That was an amazing map and something BF3 seriously needs. There were many maps that made it possible to use Frostbite 1 in BFBC2. All of CoD's maps are similar to this style and having a destructible engine would be tremendous fun! Plus, it would take away one of Dice's advantages.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 12:57:32 PM
Reply

Responding to the general net hate. I think MW3 looks great. I can see definite improvements over the prior MW games. I'm not on the CoD engine is broken bandwagon. Engines are constantly overhauled and improved upon. I dont CoD's issues are so much engine related as it is the sacrifice that comes with 60fps rendering. Whether it be Battlefield 3 or KZ3, if those games were tasked at double the frame rate, compromises would have to be made on the details end. Please, no one reference Rage as a comparative indicator. It doesn't have to deal with alpha transparency and particle effects to nearly the same degree as warfare titles, all bandwidth sapping stuff. Now I've only played MW3 on 360, and I can tell from net comparisons that a some concessions have been made for PS3(as usual), as the engine is better suited for 360's architecture. So maybe that's the real argument. Activision needs to get an engine better suited for multi-platform parity.
So... ummm. Yeah, so CoD needs a new engine! booya! On the wagon now =p

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 1:59:28 PM

I highly doubt they will put that much effort into making an engine for both systems. The only thing they care about is the money they make.

They could have done it anytime, but they didn't even try to, they just made an excuse that it wouldn't be cost effective, which I think is total BS in my opinion, they are making billions on the game. Other developers didn't have a problem making a new engine for a game and they didn't even make as much as Activision.

I'm disappointed on what's going on in MW3, you get frame rate drops, sometimes even host migration, and sometimes not even doing that and dropping the party you are in out of the game. People killing you when you are already behind cover, The kill cam doesn't even show you exactly what happens, I could shoot a guy in the face and not even miss a single shot, and somehow in the kill cam, when he kills me it shows me not even shooting, it's pretty messed up. This is in MW2, and Black Ops as well. The games mechanics needs to be refined a bit more, but when it does work it becomes fun.

The maps I don't like at all, it's cluttered, and nothing memorable like the previous CoD games. The Type-95 is very strong, it needs to be tweaked, the hit detection works pretty good, but sometimes out of the blue it will act up, but most of the times it's solid, it's either because of frame rate drops or the hosts connection. Spec-Ops is fun to play, I enjoy playing it, the SP in my opinion needed to be longer, it felt short, but I did enjoy it.

I'm not trying to bag on it just to fit in the "kool kidz club" it does have it's Issues, just like any other game.

Last edited by Clamedeus on 11/15/2011 2:02:22 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 2:44:42 PM

You can only add so much, Valve's engine is like a Frankenstein now.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 @ 2:45:30 PM
Reply

Just have someone intelligent outside the series make the engine, then have the two developers cram their games into it and sell them. People will buy it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Wednesday, November 16, 2011 @ 3:27:26 AM
Reply

what for?
theres no need to create a new engine, especially one that looks this good and runs this smoothly!
never had a dropped frame in MW, never!
only wish i could say that about other games.
hell, look at the source engine and some of the mods coming out for it.
the L4D mod for portal 2 puts some of the best PC games to shame!
plenty left in the engine, just needs a developer who can be f*cked to get everything out of it!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

KNG201
Thursday, November 17, 2011 @ 3:36:14 PM
Reply

I feel they made SOOOO much money the last few years they could of paid anybody to build an engine from the ground up...imo. Where is all that money going anyway?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Did Destiny live up to your expectations?
Yes it did and then some!
Not quite but it's still great.
No, it's only okay.
Not at all; it's a huge disappointment.

Previous Poll Results