I am pleasantly surprised that a good majority of these comments refrain from dumb comments like "puhhuhuhuhuh Micro$$$oft troll comment" and "PS3 is soo way betterer." Good work, GameSpotters!

@armandoisgreat Precisely: "check out their YouTube channel." Why would I pay $3/month to access content on my X360/PS3 that I could find for free on the internet? I have a console so I can play video games: if I want to check Facebook, watch a movie, watch a TV programme, or listen to music, well, I already have a laptop and a TV to do those.

Oh, no! This is sad. I lost my travel fleshlight :(

EA: "We swear these are absolutely different games. Fast-paced first person shooters branded on assertions of 'realism,' set during conflicts in the Middle East in the present or near-future."

Uh, do you want an Achievement for that or something?

Hmm, maybe Vivendi could sell Activision-Blizzard off for $60 million, but keep a lot of content locked. Then they could charge $15 million for extras, like Map Pack 1 (CEO's office, Front Lobby, CoD Dev Offices, and an extra Zombies map); if the purchasing company wants free, early access to this content, they can purchase an Activision Elite subscription for just $49.9 million per year.

@SubtleArts We have one. It's called "the PC."

@caliburmike We need new software and hardware? Graphics are everything to you, I presume. Maybe replace your phrase with "[developers] MUST evolve in both story-telling AND gameplay mechanics"? Ah, that sounds better.

Next headline: "Ex-Beatles legend ultimately disappointed upon discovering he's not actually working on a Halo game."

@NervoZa @EmericaCky2K "Battlefield might have better graphics...but that is not the only thing that makes it better than CoD...you rely mostly on teamplay(against skilled opponents),you have terrain/structures/map that are constantly changing during a round...what does CoD have?"

See, I take issue with this because, on consoles, Battlefield and Modern Warfare 3 really don't look much different from each other.

Relying mostly on teamwork? Well, I don't know what servers you've been playing on, because when I play Conquest, it usually degenerates into people who can't fly spawn-camping the jets, one- and two-man "squads" bumrushing the capture points, and generally a complete *lack* of acting as a team. Rush is the only game-mode that really makes you play as a team - and even then, that usually ends up with the defenders camping the M-COM stations.

"but that is not the only thing that makes it better than CoD"

You've listed two things (graphics and, debatably, teamwork). I'm curious as to what else "makes it better" than Call of Duty?

EA's shooters used to have the motto "EA Games: Challenge Everything." Maybe Activision's should be "Activision: Always The Last On The Bandwagon."