[Crovon]

News: Call of Duty to get paid-for online services - ComputerAndVideoGames.com

Activision says you should "expect" paid-for online models such as those in World of Warcraft to make the transition to other games, including Call of Duty.

Speaking during yesterday's BMO Capital Markets Conference (which sounds fun), Activision Blizzard CFO, Thomas Tippl said that while WoW's model is difficult to replicate, players should expect new monetization models for its other games soon.

"It's definitely an aspiration that we see potential in, particularly as we look at different business models to monetize the online gameplay," said Tippl. "There's good knowledge exchange happening between the Blizzard folks and our online guys."

"We have great experience also on Call of Duty with the success we had on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. A lot of that knowledge is getting actually built into the Battle.Net platform and the design of that," he added.

"I think it's been mutually beneficial, and you should expect us to test and ultimately launch additional online monetization models of some of some of our biggest franchises like Call of Duty."

According to the Activision CFO, there is a demand from its core fanbase to pay for additional services.

"Our gamers are telling us there's lots of services and innovation they would like to see that they're not getting yet. From what we see so far, additional content, as well as all the services Blizzard is offering, is that there is demand from the core gamers to pay up for that," he said.

So would you be happy paying to play COD MP? I know I wouldnt!
But then again, we're all crying out to be charged more monthly anyway......apparantly...

[RedAl]

Originally Posted by jimihifi

News: Call of Duty to get paid-for online services - ComputerAndVideoGames.com



So would you be happy paying to play COD MP? I know I wouldnt!
But then again, we're all crying out to be charged more monthly anyway......apparantly...

No, not if we`re already paying to be on Xbox live as it is and specially if they still insist on a RRP for about £50. Think they`re living in la-la land.

[Mr Noble]

has this topic not been posted before , i remember commenting on it

[mooperman]

Activision the new EA.......?

[Crovon]

Originally Posted by GATESHEAD MOB

has this topic not been posted before , i remember commenting on it

No, I think you're thinking of when they decided to hike the rrp of MW2 because they knew it would be popular.

Then again, they constantly come out with so much crap I dont really know.

[uncleclives]

Yeah up the RRP next time to 65 quid and charge everyone a tenner a month to use P2P servers

[Dirtschmooz]

Not sure I would pay, unless the content and innovation was substantially more. Dedicated servers and ongoing DLC, if covered within a nominal monthly fee, would be acceptable, but it all boils down to cost.

For example, to play MW2 Multiplayer as it currently stands, then no I would not pay to play it. For £1 or £2 a month with regular updates and DLC, such as maps, then I probably would.

Personally I would prefer if they offered all these things for free and looked to in-game advertising to cover costs/generate revenue. I remember playing BF2142 on PC which at the time pioneered streaming in adverts on to billboards whilst in game. Unfortunately this, unsurprisingly, peed people off, but also caused a performance hit. In that revenue model it was take take take and give nothing back to the gamer.

Anyway, I am ranting. Bottom line is if the content/game is good enough, then a fee is inevitable for future games.

[Crovon]

Originally Posted by uncleclives

Yeah up the RRP next time to 65 quid and charge everyone a tenner a month to use P2P servers

Yep, sounds perfectly reasonable doesnt it.



I wonder when that bubble activision are floating in will burst?

[majnu]

activision are getting gready.

[Cyborgmatt]

Originally Posted by mooperman

Activision the new EA.......?

This happened a while ago tbh.

[kav]

Activision are a bunch of clowns. Remember when they announced the RRP and the CEO or whoever it was said "in fact if we could get away with charging more, we would". They may have some great franchises, but they'd want to be careful they don't shoot themselves in the foot - you'll always get hardcore fans who'll pay to play, but for a huge chunk of the rest of the population who are more casual gamers, they'll just find a game they don't have to fork out even more money for.

[Crovon]

Originally Posted by Dirtschmooz

Not sure I would pay, unless the content and innovation was substantially more. Dedicated servers and ongoing DLC, if covered within a nominal monthly fee, would be acceptable, but it all boils down to cost.

For example, to play MW2 Multiplayer as it currently stands, then no I would not pay to play it. For £1 or £2 a month with regular updates and DLC, such as maps, then I probably would.

Personally I would prefer if they offered all these things for free and looked to in-game advertising to cover costs/generate revenue. I remember playing BF2142 on PC which at the time pioneered streaming in adverts on to billboards whilst in game. Unfortunately this, unsurprisingly, peed people off, but also caused a performance hit. In that revenue model it was take take take and give nothing back to the gamer.

Anyway, I am ranting. Bottom line is if the content/game is good enough, then a fee is inevitable for future games.

I agree to some extent, but the trouble is it wont be £1 or £2 a month - more like £6 - £8. But just how many monthly subscriptions would you be willing to pay at once? Say you have 5 games that all charge monthly, that becomes up to £40 a month just to play them

[Int3rceptor]

According to the Activision CFO, there is a demand from its core fanbase to pay for additional services.

What a load of crap! There are people who still moan about paying for xbox live so there can only be a handful of people who would be willing to pay for additional services on a monthly basis.

Activision need to look at how the supermarket price war for MW2 got gamers in a fenzy, only then will they realise that we DON'T want to be charged more money to play the games we love. It's about them giving US more value for the £39.99 or in Activisions case £50 that they want us to spend on the initial product.

Perhaps piracy has finally caught up with us and the studios feel that this is the only way to safe guard their investment - by ensuring that the public have to pay monthly to continue to use the product.

[r2001uk]

I just wish IW could break away, they don't need Activision anymore.

[uncleclives]

They want us to pay more but after the apalling way the PS3 users have been treated Activision should be paying them!

[Int3rceptor]

Originally Posted by r2001uk

I just wish IW could break away, they don't need Activision anymore.

I don't know how long they are contracted to Activision for but the sooner they can break the better.

Activision obviously own the Call of Duty franchise, maybe thats why IW are trying to push the Modern Warefare brand - to ensure they have a good following before they ditch them and hence the last minute changes to the box art to include the 'dropped' Call of Duty tag.

Surely with the revenue from the Modern Warefare series, IW could now publish their own material and keep all of the profits.

[r2001uk]

Hopefully they have enough connections to become a publisher as well as a developer.

Wishful thinking

[Dirtschmooz]

Originally Posted by jimihifi

I agree to some extent, but the trouble is it wont be £1 or £2 a month - more like £6 - £8. But just how many monthly subscriptions would you be willing to pay at once? Say you have 5 games that all charge monthly, that becomes up to £40 a month just to play them

Agree, but the thread was about COD specifically. If it was £6-8 then I would defo give it a miss. There are only a handful of games that would justify pay per month. COD is one of those (providing it met the criteria in my initial post).

take care all...hope to see you in COD .....whilst it's free

[d0ct0r46]

I love all the cod games but...... if this ever happens

[monkey00]

I really hate the attitude of Activision, we pay for LIVE already

Reading various quotes from their CEO from the last year, he really is a jackass

This is someone who just made 20 million in 1 day from selling his options in the company

[Nezben]

Originally Posted by monkey00

I really hate the attitude of Activision, we pay for LIVE already

Reading various quotes from their CEO from the last year, he really is a jackass

This is someone who just made 20 million in 1 day from selling his options in the company

I think he's being clever here, think about it, he says in the future you could be paying to play COD, but right now your not, so buy the game while its free! (to play)
If you catch my drift.

[Crovon]

Originally Posted by Nezben

I think he's being clever here, think about it, he says in the future you could be paying to play COD, but right now your not, so buy the game while its free! (to play)
If you catch my drift.

Its a nice thought, but he is probably dead serious about wanting us to pay to play it in the future.

[SkilledNutter]

people will play something else period

[majnu]

Originally Posted by r2001uk

I just wish IW could break away, they don't need Activision anymore.

i agree IW don't need the COD brand anymore. I am sure they can happily make a living producing "Modern Warfare" branded games.

[Jay]

Activison and iw make me sick.

They can go kiss my ass if they think they can charge to play their game online.

Their game ain't that f'in great.

Trust me if they keep down the road they're on they'll fall.

Ea done the same, let the greed get them, but they started flopping and soon changed their ways.

Look at fifa, they've really tried.

[Covert Recon]

I remember at one time, let's say during the previous gen, when EA games all had a £5.00 higher RRP. No reason for it, no justification, not necessarily getting a better game for your money, just corporate greed I expect (and large advertising and PR budgets to be covered).

These days, EA are a company that have taken a few risks with their franchises and also started up new IPs, going for quality and innovation. Improved FIFA, change of style to Burnout, Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Battlefield: Bad Company, Dragon Age: Origins, NFS: Shift (and next instalment coming from Criterion as well).

There are still poor/average/same as the year before EA games (Mercenaries 2, LOTR: Conquest, various Harry Potter games, Tiger Woods, GI Joe, various The Sims games, etc) that don't push any boundaries but it's because they have taken risks and had lots of games in development that they have seen record losses and plan to lay off 1,500 people by March. It's a shame really.


Activision on the other hand, haven't taken risks, launched original IPs or produced games with high Metacritic scores. To me, they publish movie/comic book licensed games of varying quality. They ride on the endless milking of Spider-Man, Tony Hawks, Crash Bandicoot, kids movies (Bee Movie, Shrek, etc), Lego games, Guitar Hero variations and track downloads. Blur seems to be their first original idea in an age.

These licenses sell games though. Some people will buy games of Spider-Man, Transformers, etc, whether they're good or not. Hence, money-bags Activision have become arrogant. Yes, they do have one of the biggest game franchises in history, but will it save them in the long term? No, their arrogance will be their downfall as they increasingly ignore the desires of the people they profit from and think they know what's best for us. Governments are often replaced in elections for the same thing.

I've got twice the number of EA games than I do Activision. Bad Company is my most played game.

[OldSkoO1]

No way

I pay enough for xbox live

I pay enough for the game

I'm willing to pay for DLC

There is no way i would pay a monthly subscription on top of everything else


I dont really know what they are thinking of charging for but if they think i'm going to pay them a monthly fee for the privilege of playing MP then i won't be buying their next release.

On one hand they produce one of the best MP games ever made and clearly bring what the fans want then the seem to have the suits trying to monetize and maximise profits. They should be happy at having one of the biggest selling games selling millions worldwide on the first day.

[MrStinky]

I think I'd jack it in if they decided upon a monthly charge, unless the overall charge including original purchase of the game, over a two year period was equal to or less than the current cost of a game (we'll say £45 for arguements sake, I know not many people pay that atm)

I really don't think they'll be able to think of enough "innovation" to justify any more, if they want more than that over the two years I'll most likely play a COD game for, they'll have to pull something quite special out of the bag, and I don't think what Activision would offer could justify the added cost.

[Viveck]

Hah, they take away voice chat, don't provide you anything but a matchmaking medium (i.e., they don't give you any servers and matchmaking doesn't take much bandwidth for them in comparison to the amount we dish out on our own) and tell you how to play their game...

We're already being charged monthly (more or less) for the XBL service which is sad enough, considering we still don't get anything cool like a server to call our own.

MMO's have to have monthly fees because they host millions of people on costly servers, and have substantial tri-monthly content patches with bi-yearly expansions....That's a model I don't really want to see in an FPS.

[Hob_Nob_Man]

Hmm i would'nt be happy with paying it, but seeing how im a nut about these games I'd probably still play it, but eventually get bored cos none of my mates would buy and I'd have nobody to play with A few of my friends already refuse to pay 40 quid a year to play online as it is :/

Next thing you know they will charge us to use Party chat in game