The Call of Duty Black Ops ports on PS4 and PS5 are about as much of a mess as any Xbox player could have said they'd be ⁠75%

By Richard Devine⁠67%

7/13/2026, 1:51:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.2% saturation with 158 hits. Analysis detected 1,351 faulty-reasoning hits from 403 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (5,544 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.70% of the article peer group.

The Call of Duty: Black Ops and Black Ops 2 ports for the PS4 and PS5 were received to much hype and excitement. 
But guess what? 
They're a mess. 
Who possibly could have guessed? 
Only everyone who's ever tried playing the backward compatible versions on Xbox consoles in recent memory. 
Collectively, it's an "I told you so," because we knew it would happen. 
The only difference is that the 'shiny new' ports on PlayStation seem to be getting some kind of active support from Activision. 
Because Black Ops has had some of its playlists deactivated while "issues" are investigated. 
The issues are simple: hackers. 
You think Black Ops 7 has a bad rep for hackers? 
Without modern anticheat technologies, the old games are like the Wild West. 
It's taken absolutely no time at all for the new ports to be compromised, which really does show just how lazy they are. 
We're not just talking about wallhacks, either, though those are bad enough. 
Players are being inundated with lobbies packed with players running exploits. 
Some are instantly max prestige, everything unlocked, ridiculous statistics, and perhaps worst of all for legitimate players, it's been reported a "negative XP" hack is dropping players back to level 1. 
I love both of these games, but from the get-go, I saw nothing but a quick cash grab, cashing in on player nostalgia for the old games we loved so much, especially in a year when the new Call of Duty hasn't had the best reception. 
But they're not 'new,' are they? 
They're just the same old games we've been able to play on Xbox all along. 
I saw a question on Reddit where, potentially linked to the recent hype, an Xbox player was asking if it was worth them buying Black Ops 2. 
At full price, the only answer is no. 
If you want to enjoy multiplayer, I'd also say the answer is no. 
If you can get a cheap disc to enjoy the campaign and Zombies? 
Sure. 
But props at least to Activision for seemingly offering support on these ports. 
How long it'll last and how far they'll go, I guess we'll find out. 
But it's more than we've seen on Xbox with the existing versions in a long time. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 22.3%Richard Devine: 3.1%Windows Central: 4.2%Confirmation Bias22.3%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.9%Windows Central: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 24.1%Richard Devine: 2.9%Windows Central: 4.6%Availability Heuristic24.1%This article: 4.2%Richard Devine: 1.3%Windows Central: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 4.5%Richard Devine: 2.2%Windows Central: 0.8%Hindsight Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 3.1%Windows Central: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Richard Devine: 5.8%Windows Central: 5.0%Framing Effect9.7%This article: 5.2%Richard Devine: 0.7%Windows Central: 1.3%Loss Aversion5.2%This article: 3.7%Richard Devine: 1.2%Windows Central: 0.9%Status Quo Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.6%Windows Central: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Richard Devine: 6.5%Windows Central: 8.0%Optimism Bias3.5%This article: 17.9%Richard Devine: 2.0%Windows Central: 3.0%Pessimism Bias17.9%This article: 39.2%Richard Devine: 5.7%Windows Central: 8.6%Negativity Bias39.2%This article: 11.4%Richard Devine: 1.6%Windows Central: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 1.3%Windows Central: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 2.9%Windows Central: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Richard Devine: 1.1%Windows Central: 4.1%Halo Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Richard Devine: 1.6%Windows Central: 2.2%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.7%Windows Central: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 1.4%Windows Central: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 2.3%Windows Central: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.2%Richard Devine: 3.2%Windows Central: 3.7%Appeal to Authority3.2%This article: 12.2%Richard Devine: 3.7%Windows Central: 1.7%False Dilemma12.2%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.2%Windows Central: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.1%Richard Devine: 5.2%Windows Central: 8.5%Hasty Generalization18.1%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.6%Windows Central: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.2%Richard Devine: 1.5%Windows Central: 1.1%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 15.4%Richard Devine: 3.2%Windows Central: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion15.4%This article: 16.9%Richard Devine: 1.3%Windows Central: 0.9%Begging the Question16.9%This article: 3.5%Richard Devine: 0.6%Windows Central: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 3.2%Richard Devine: 1.7%Windows Central: 0.1%Tu Quoque3.2%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.0%Richard Devine: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.1%Appeal to Nature3.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.4%Richard Devine: 2.4%Windows Central: 4.0%Anecdotal14.4%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 1.4%Windows Central: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.9%Richard Devine: 2.3%Windows Central: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.9%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.7%Richard Devine: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.2%Personal Incredulity2.7%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 11.4%Richard Devine: 0.7%Windows Central: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy11.4%This article: 11.2%Richard Devine: 4.2%Windows Central: 3.0%Unattributed Quote11.2%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 2.8%Windows Central: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 29.8%Richard Devine: 15.4%Windows Central: 13.9%Biased Writer Voice29.8%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 1.0%Windows Central: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Devine: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 19.9%Richard Devine: 6.4%Windows Central: 6.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…19.9%

403 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.