Call of duty is better than battlefield

Before i begin my next round argument i am not insisting not to play Call of Duty and that I do not enjoy playing it myself, i am just stating reasons why i believe battlefield is better. You mention the support kill streak package to help players, but the package is not as fun as the assault package. Call of duty players are not really interested in helping the team win in public games, they just want a good kill death ratio or a fun kill streak. When you compare a kill streak from both packages which are around the same kills, which would you rather have: an attack helicopter you are allowed to control which comes with a minigun and flares, or a device which dsiables enemies sat coms? Infected is not a new mode, the last time Infinity ward made a game it included infected, Treyarch did not just carry it over. Infected was in Modern Warfare 3. Infinity ward has mistakingly took out game modes that were important to competitive call of duty. They nearly killed the one thing that continues to get call of duty attention. They took out favourites such as hardpoint and capture the flag. Changing game modes could also stop people from buying as people do not like change. The game modes you have mentioned could increase teamwork in competitive COD but they do not use these game modes and no one cares about teamwork on public matches, they only care for themsleves. In battlefield you can also have free will, just don't play in a squad. Call of Duty has been out for a longer period of time hence why it is more popular than battlefield, but battlefield took off a game earlier than Call of Duty and each year, battlefields sales are edging closer and closer to call of duty's. You cant expect a game that you can download for free to have no hackers, creators will have no intention or motivation to sort it. It would not be in their best interest. They would want to concentrate on the game you have to pay for to keep the players happy as they have actually paid. Call of Duty has 3 verified twitter accounts to which none of them reply to twitter users publicly (they might reply through direct messages), while battlefield have 5 verified accounts to which 3 reply publicly reply about problems or hackers. Battlefield also have verified accounts for spanish, french and japanese unlike COD who only have English. I do not believe your research was thorough with this point or maybe you could not just find the accounts so i will leave links below. https://twitter.com... https://twitter.com... https://twitter.com... https://twitter.com... https://twitter.com... I do agree a lot of kills in battlefield are not hard, but only in some way is COD about skill. COD comes a lot of the time down to connection. Unless you are really good playing in a lobby of average players or really bad this is not the case. But if two similar skilled players end up in a gun fight, most of the time the host of the game or the person with the strongest connection to the host will win. Evidence of this can be found in competitive COD as games must be played in system links to not give one team an advantage. Once again you speak about a free version of battlefield, but in the actual game of battlefield, it offers 18 items of equipment while Call of Duty only offers 16 items. I see your point with Call of Duty and quick scoping but every year when each new game for both franchises are near release you hear the same argument all the time that battlefield is more realistic and continues to pulls sales. Battlefield's friendly fire situation is sorted very easily by EA. If the culprit continues he gets kicked. Simple. COD can be addicting but one bad game and most likely people will stop playing but for some reason which i can't figure out if you are doing bad in battlefield it is more tolerable.