Activision: "We will never, ever charge for multiplayer."

P

Plague_Injected

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
6,621
Source article here.

From Activision executive Eric Hirshberg:

...at the end of the day, all I'm trying to get across is I can unequivocally say we will never, ever charge for...multiplayer."
Click to expand...

This is definitely surprising given all the noise made recently by Kotick and others about wanting COD to go the pay-to-pay route. And yeah, I'm guessing Hirshberg isn't counting Blizzard games like WoW.

Reckon Activision will stick to this?
 
I hope this true. I don't mind the $60 to buy a game, but I don't want any recurring fees.
 
Peoples hate for Activison and Kotick caused a misunderstanding of what he originally said. Kotick was pointing out how Microsoft charges for and makes money off of xbox live subscriptions, and that through Activison's own research the majority only do so to play COD. However Activison does not receive any revenue from xbox live subscriptions. Kotick was implying that Activison should share in Lives revenue stream, not that they would charge more on top.

I also find it really amusing how the same people who are fine paying for xbox live for multiplayer would have a problem paying for a hypothetical Activison/COD equivalent service.
 
limitedaccess said:
Peoples hate for Activison and Kotick caused a misunderstanding of what he originally said. Kotick was pointing out how Microsoft charges for and makes money off of xbox live subscriptions, and that through Activison's own research the majority only do so to play COD. However Activison does not receive any revenue from xbox live subscriptions. Kotick was implying that Activison should share in Lives revenue stream, not that they would charge more on top.

I also find it really amusing how the same people who are fine paying for xbox live for multiplayer would have a problem paying for a hypothetical Activison/COD equivalent service.
Click to expand...

Except Kotick is quoted as saying, "I would have Call of Duty be an online subscription service tomorrow." There is little room for interpretation there.

I'm not exactly against Activision wanting a cut of Xbox Live revenue but even if COD games are the most played online games on XBL, there are still going to be a significant number of gamers who pay for XBL who never touch COD.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Except Kotick is quoted as saying, "I would have Call of Duty be an online subscription service tomorrow." There is little room for interpretation there.

I'm not exactly against Activision wanting a cut of Xbox Live revenue but even if COD games are the most played online games on XBL, there are still going to be a significant number of gamers who pay for XBL who never touch COD.
Click to expand...

But what is the context of that quote? He was asked a hypothetical "magic wish" type question, in which a short non-expanded upon answer was given. And why wouldn't he want this wish? If by his own belief 60% of xbox live users only use live to play COD, why wouldn't he want them paying Activison directly as opposed to Microsoft? Also his fully reply said he wanted a "call of duty world," and that many COD players would enjoy a persistent world (similar to another Activison property WoW perhaps?), not that he wanted the same existing game to suddenly tack on fees.
 
limitedaccess said:
But what is the context of that quote? He was asked a hypothetical "magic wish" type question, in which a short non-expanded upon answer was given. And why wouldn't he want this wish? If by his own belief 60% of xbox live users only use live to play COD, why wouldn't he want them paying Activison directly as opposed to Microsoft? Also his fully reply said he wanted a "call of duty world," and that many COD players would enjoy a persistent world (similar to another Activison property WoW perhaps?), not that he wanted the same existing game to suddenly tack on fees.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm also not against a pay-to-play COD game separate from the traditional COD format if it wasn't US$60 and had new content continuously added to justify the fees. If I only want to play the game online for a month, I only have to pay for a month, and I can't see that as a bad thing.

I would prefer it didn't replace COD games as they stand now, though.
 
Nice to see that they won't charge us to play on servers we pay to operate ourselves.

What a gift we've been given today! Thank you, Activision. Your magnanimity knows no bounds!
 
I love how people will rant and rail against things like this

yet they are the same fools in line to buy whatever game comes out that Kotick is selling.

I vote with my wallet, feels like nobody else does. For all the ranting and raving on this boards about how bad Black Ops are, a whole lot of [H]'ers didn't mind paying up for it.
 
Fail said:
I love how people will rant and rail against things like this

yet they are the same fools in line to buy whatever game comes out that Kotick is selling.

I vote with my wallet, feels like nobody else does. For all the ranting and raving on this boards about how bad Black Ops are, a whole lot of [H]'ers didn't mind paying up for it.
Click to expand...

You're not alone! I did the same and feel the same way. :D
 
"...at the end of the day, all I'm trying to get across is I can unequivocally say we will never, ever charge for...multiplayer."


As others pointed out acti-blizzard already does, and even ignoring that they charge for dlc, and these days yearly "updates". The posters above are correct too, the market keeps fueling this bs BOYCOTT! *but also preorder*

Kotick is pretty much a troll, this is the same guy who has stated that if his employees are not dreading coming to work they are not working hard enough.
 
Last edited:
Why should I believe this? At the end of the day, if they figure it'll make them more $$$, they'll just re-write the quote or re-explain it saying something like "we aren't charging for multiplayer, we are charging for the experience" or some nonsense.
 
maybe he is referring to other companies besides microsoft. EA has online passes for its sports games like madden 11, fifa 11, nhl 11, etc. usually comes free with new game purchase, i suppose it is more to deter the sale of used ea games, but it cost $10 to buy another online pass.
 
I'm just curious, but why are you guys bothering to read propaganda?
 
rcakenny said:
except in korea. aren't they not even selling the game there to own, but charging a monthly fee to play?
Click to expand...

It was a test market for 'renting' the game. Blizzard wasn't sure if SC2 would actually penetrate the Korean market due to the vast changes to gameplay so they allowed the game to be subscription based for those that weren't too interested in the game. They still sell traditional full copies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top