Next 'Call of Duty' To Charge Monthly Fee

[Parmenides]

That's all fine and dandy, but my post is geared toward the clueless rage-first, read-later crowd who think the game will be pay-to-play. Whether people are paranoid and scared that somehow this content will create a future of pure pay-to-play games, then that's on them and I'm fine with that, it doesn't concern me because I'm not paranoid and I'm not talking about that. But, again, what I'm addressing is the fact that some people think the multiplayer in the next CoD will be pay to play. I'm not addressing whether or not the future will be bleak for gaming, simply whether or not this specific, upcoming CoD game will be pay to play, which it won't be.

Of course, I AM of the opinion that this "testing of the waters" won't be a bad thing for gaming at all, but that's far from the point I was trying to make.

I just said the same thing about a few times in a row, in a few different ways, so I'm hoping you now understand.

Testing the waters won't hurt the future if the test fails. That's about the only scenario for a bright future.

 

[stop!theradio]

I can kind of agree with that. Either way - a pay to play system would never work. Not on the scale that Fail is so paranoid about. A monthly thing for MMORPG's is one thing but first person shooters? Nah. This extra content thing is about as far as it will ever go - and I still don't see what they're proposing here as any sort of huge problem.

In short - people need to stop being so paranoid and negative. In 5 years if I'm wrong and we have to front $60 to buy the game and then another $60 every month just to continue playing it, then you can say "I told you so", but I'm guaranteeing that won't be the case. Mark my words and save this thread for the future. Screenshot it if you'd like.

 

[Deleted member 136890]

I can kind of agree with that. Either way - a pay to play system would never work. Not on the scale that Fail is so paranoid about. A monthly thing for MMORPG's is one thing but first person shooters? Nah. This extra content thing is about as far as it will ever go - and I still don't see what they're proposing here as any sort of huge problem.

In short - people need to stop being so paranoid and negative. In 5 years if I'm wrong and we have to front $60 to buy the game and then another $60 every month just to continue playing it, then you can say "I told you so", but I'm guaranteeing that won't be the case. Mark my words and save this thread for the future. Screenshot it if you'd like.

As it was said to me on another forum

"You might not want to stick your neck out like that".

For you to say that pay to play system would never work is stretching it big time. Who knows if this will work or not. We all do not know, hell elite isnt even out yet.

But I do think you need to take a good hard look and see who Call of Duty has progressed since CoD2. If you would take a honest look and see all the facts and what was told to the communitie(s) then you will see a pattern. One that smells and points to a pay to play system.

Hell in CoD5 aka W@W your server will not run if it cant log in and get authenticated. Same for MW2 and BO. No login and authentication then no run. Again look at the history of cod since cod2 and read what was told to us by ATVI/IW/Treyarch and you will see a pattern of half truths and lies.

ATVI CEO himself said that he wants to monetize call of duty and this elite is just another step in that direction.

Elite will not be optional in any sense. If you opt out of it you get the very basic of game, no special weps or any of the paid for perks. You will get your ass owned big time when you go against the "Elites". So now you have a choice, fork over the subscription or continue to get your ass handed to you. Take your pick

Right now MP is free to play but Elite is just another step toward that pay to play if it all works out. If elite is successful and the dollars start to roll in like they want/expect then they will take another step to make more of call of duty pay to play then the last step is MP pay to play.

I could be wrong but the history of call of duty starting with cod2 tells me other wise.

 

[stop!theradio]

As it was said to me on another forum

"You might not want to stick your neck out like that".

For you to say that pay to play system would never work is stretching it big time. Who knows if this will work or not. We all do not know, hell elite isnt even out yet.

Dude...that's the thing...Elite isn't a pay to play system. You do understand that, right? That's my entire point, that this is NOT, I repeat, NOT a pay to play system. Online play will still be free. So many people are having a hard time understanding that.

 

[FrozenLiquidity]

Dude...that's the thing...Elite isn't a pay to play system. You do understand that, right? That's my entire point, that this is NOT, I repeat, NOT a pay to play system. Online play will still be free. So many people are having a hard time understanding that.

Some people may be missing this point, but we're trying to point the finger towards the bigger picture here. Sure, the "elite" service is not a pay to play system, but it's a big step towards one; one which has already been mentioned and targeted by key figures at ATVI.

Details on the elite service are still scarce. They may have a few skins for people to use, maybe some weapons or access to maps not included in the basic game. In which case it almost is a pay to play premium content system, as if one cuts off their payment to the system they loes those benefits and are unable to play on the new maps.

It may be more economical for some players. Two months of service to try out some new maps may and then move on may be worth for two months at $5, rather than spending $15 on DLC, but look at where that puts the breakeven point and what players get after that for their money. After a year they've spent $60 on probably a dozen maps, advanced stat tracking, skins, whatever. Is it a deal? Maybe for some people, though I imagine to many of us here, it feels like what it is - The further nickel and diming performed by businesses looking to squeeze every drop of profit out of their enterprises.

Either way, we just don't know what "elite" will mean for us yet. It may not be the pay to play that everyone is worried about, but it certainly takes us one great big step closer to it. That's why it's been met with hostility from many people on this forum, myself included. Do you understand?

 

[beowulf7]

When will this idea show up on failblog?

 

[Shalafi]

Dude...that's the thing...Elite isn't a pay to play system. You do understand that, right? That's my entire point, that this is NOT, I repeat, NOT a pay to play system. Online play will still be free. So many people are having a hard time understanding that.

You have no capacity to see the long term. Ever heard of the word "gateway drug" and it's definition?

 

[rflcptr]

You have no capacity to see the long term. Ever heard of the word "gateway drug" and it's definition?

About as bad as a car analogy.

 

[stop!theradio]

Some people may be missing this point, but we're trying to point the finger towards the bigger picture here. Sure, the "elite" service is not a pay to play system, but it's a big step towards one; one which has already been mentioned and targeted by key figures at ATVI.

Details on the elite service are still scarce. They may have a few skins for people to use, maybe some weapons or access to maps not included in the basic game. In which case it almost is a pay to play premium content system, as if one cuts off their payment to the system they loes those benefits and are unable to play on the new maps.

It may be more economical for some players. Two months of service to try out some new maps may and then move on may be worth for two months at $5, rather than spending $15 on DLC, but look at where that puts the breakeven point and what players get after that for their money. After a year they've spent $60 on probably a dozen maps, advanced stat tracking, skins, whatever. Is it a deal? Maybe for some people, though I imagine to many of us here, it feels like what it is - The further nickel and diming performed by businesses looking to squeeze every drop of profit out of their enterprises.

Either way, we just don't know what "elite" will mean for us yet. It may not be the pay to play that everyone is worried about, but it certainly takes us one great big step closer to it. That's why it's been met with hostility from many people on this forum, myself included. Do you understand?

I understand. But of course the way I see it is that people are just being paranoid. There's no way we as gamers would ever let them get away with a system as horrific as charging us just to play the game at all. I mean, I understand that this premium content thing has some people scared - but c'mon - the perks they're offering would never make it into the game, anyways. Like I said before it's not like one would be missing out on anything, because they wouldn't include it in the game for free in the first place. I know a lot of people will buy into the Elite thing - but as I said before, I am 100% confident this won't turn out to be the "end of gaming" or some other sensationalist, anti-CoD paranoia. I don't really think this takes us one step closer to it, either. Premium content has ALWAYS cost extra - whether it be the extra $10-$20 you'd spend on the "special edition" package of a game or an expansion pack or map packs.

The reason I have to keep reiterating myself, though, on the whole "It's not a pay to play system" thing is because of the people throughout the thread who didn't read the article at all. The one's who replied, "OMG we have to pay to play? UGH they're not getting my money I'll go play BF3 for free", are the ones I'm referring to. It keeps turning into an argument when people are missing my point. When I quote someone and say "it's not pay to play!" and then someone else comes along and says "but this is the stepping stone to that cold, dark future!", I kind of facepalm, because that's not what I'm getting at. I'm simply correcting the people who chose not to read the article.

 

[stop!theradio]

You have no capacity to see the long term. Ever heard of the word "gateway drug" and it's definition?

No - I'm just not a paranoid, CoD anti-fanb-o-y.

 

[Deleted member 136890]

Some people may be missing this point, but we're trying to point the finger towards the bigger picture here. Sure, the "elite" service is not a pay to play system, but it's a big step towards one; one which has already been mentioned and targeted by key figures at ATVI.

Details on the elite service are still scarce. They may have a few skins for people to use, maybe some weapons or access to maps not included in the basic game. In which case it almost is a pay to play premium content system, as if one cuts off their payment to the system they loes those benefits and are unable to play on the new maps.

It may be more economical for some players. Two months of service to try out some new maps may and then move on may be worth for two months at $5, rather than spending $15 on DLC, but look at where that puts the breakeven point and what players get after that for their money. After a year they've spent $60 on probably a dozen maps, advanced stat tracking, skins, whatever. Is it a deal? Maybe for some people, though I imagine to many of us here, it feels like what it is - The further nickel and diming performed by businesses looking to squeeze every drop of profit out of their enterprises.

Either way, we just don't know what "elite" will mean for us yet. It may not be the pay to play that everyone is worried about, but it certainly takes us one great big step closer to it. That's why it's been met with hostility from many people on this forum, myself included. Do you understand?

Thats exactly what I am trying to put across. Yes Elite is aka MP is still free at the moment. But Elite is a step toward the future, toward that pay to play system.

I also implore that stop!theradio goto CNBC or any of its affiliates and check out some of the financial analysis that was done on Call of Duty. Pay to play was a huge topic and yes they even said that CoD will be play to play at some point in the future.

I also will say when has ATVI/IW/Treyarch ever told us the whole story and or truth about the games they make/publish. They haven't and we are stuck on release when some poor soul forked out 60 bucks for a crap game and the truth comes out on how they were lying or not telling the whole story.

Wanna bet that 402 is chomping at the bit for another million dollar check from ATVI. He got one back in the CoD4 days and he sure plastered it all over the net. Yep he got paid big time for misleading/lying to the public/communities on the real deal with the game(s).

 

[Shalafi]

Again, it could be called Dingus the Wingus: Called to Duty, and if it had all that crap added to it, i'd be against it.

By any other name, I'm against it.

If it was Call of Duty: MW3, and had everything that CoD4 did, I'd buy it.

I'm not anti-Call of Duty, I'm anti-ruin-the-once-great-franchise-while-exploiting-the-customers-by-nickel-and-diming-them-to-death

Call of Duty is nothing more than a name, and that name is being exploited for nothing more than profits, and it has nothing to do with providing the best gaming experience possible. That's the core issue here. Of course you want to overlook that, because i'm an anti-CoD fanboy instead of a pure PC gamer consumer activist.

You should just send Bobby Kotick an email, and just put your posts in your email, I'm sure he'd hire you to be his mouthpiece. Your jibba jabba is spot on.

 

[Deleted member 136890]

No - I'm just not a paranoid, CoD anti-fanb-o-y.

Now your true colors are really coming out. Yea go slam anyone who speaks out or has a negative opinion on this situation and more than likely a huge game changer.

Yea you must be a koolaid drinking fanboi who is so blinded and just do not want to admit what Elite means.

 

[Deleted member 136890]

Again, it could be called Dingus the Wingus: Called to Duty, and if it had all that crap added to it, i'd be against it.

By any other name, I'm against it.

If it was Call of Duty: MW3, and had everything that CoD4 did, I'd buy it.

I'm not anti-Call of Duty, I'm anti-ruin-the-once-great-franchise-while-exploiting-the-customers-by-nickel-and-diming-them-to-death

Call of Duty is nothing more than a name, and that name is being exploited for nothing more than profits, and it has nothing to do with providing the best gaming experience possible. That's the core issue here. Of course you want to overlook that, because i'm an anti-CoD fanboy instead of a pure PC gamer consumer activist.

You should just send Bobby Kotick an email, and just put your posts in your email, I'm sure he'd hire you to be his mouthpiece. Your jibba jabba is spot on.

^^THIS and spot on...........................

 

[stop!theradio]

Now your true colors are really coming out. Yea go slam anyone who speaks out or has a negative opinion on this situation and more than likely a huge game changer.

Yea you must be a koolaid drinking fanboi who is so blinded and just do not want to admit what Elite means.

You obviously are NOT in the loop regarding the fact that Fail enters every MW2 thread he can and slams the game to all hell even though he's never played it for himself. Yeah - that's the case, and it's clear you're oblivious to it. Research before you run your mouth. As I've stated a numerous plenty of times - I couldn't care less who "likes" or "dislikes" CoD or anything else for that matter - just don't go around slamming a game you've never even played. You and everyone who doesn't like the MW series can go ahead not liking it - it doesn't bother or affect me at all. Zero percent. I don't go around bashing people for not liking the game, not by a longshot, but if you'd take a second to comprehend what's going on, you'd understand that.

Of course you want to overlook that

I'm not overlooking a thing - I'm just not being paranoid about it. You seem to think this will be the nail in the coffin for gaming as we know it and I do not. That's all. I don't even understand what you're trying to argue anymore. Nowhere have I attacked, singled out or put anyone on the spot for thinking this will be the nail in the coffin. I disagree, yes, but I don't make it a point to "correct" the people who think this is the beginning of the end. I came in this thread to read the article, and then had one purpose: to let all the people who think MW3 is pay-to-play know that that is NOT the case. But - as ALWAYS, you turn it into something else. As stated - whether or not this will largely affect gaming in the future - I don't think it will at all, but my original point was never, EVER about that. As you know. As I've stated a million times already. As you keep choosing to conveniently ignore.

 

[Shalafi]

I don't understand these accusations of paranoia. Why the hell is telling it like it is equalivalent to being paranoid?

I'll tell you this, you could take some drugs, call it Empire, it'll sell out, you could bring back that same shit, call it Heart Attack, but make it weak, and fiends will buy twice as much to get the same high, and it's nothing more than the same shit, just a different name.

This is nothing different than what's happening to the Call of Duty series, they are watering it down and cutting the shit up so that it's twice as weak, but they make you pay more to get the same high.

Dude, it's simple economics and business sense (or lack of, thereof). I think they are misguided in trying to squeeze consumers for every nickel and dime they can get their grubby hands on.

You're here supporting them all the way through this.

It's ok man, I get it, you just support the notion that we should all bend over for our Activision overlords and Supreme Dear Leader Bobby "Cash Money" Kotick.

You're now the official Minister of Propaganda, Activision Division. This shit is NOT good for gamers, not in any way, shape, or form, and it has failed the sniff test all over the Internet, I wonder why?

The sheeple are finally waking up and seeing what I've been preaching all along. We predicted this shit back when MW2 came out, and it's just coming true now.

This WILL mean the end of the Call of Duty series if enough people choose not to buy into the overexploitation of the franchise.

Again, you get hung up over a name, it's not Call of Duty that matters, it's the direction the franchise has been headed down on since MW1, and that's on a downward spiral.

Wanna know where that ends? You don't even need to pick between the red or blue pill to find out, cause I'll tell you.








It ends up right in the shitter, flushed down it.

 

[Climber]

They're going to go the way of Guitar Hero and paying for songs. Once the franchise has played itself out Activision will just fire the team, and start looking at another franchise to exploit. Which is all this really about. They are testing the waters to see what they can get away with.

 

[Shalafi]

They're going to go the way of Guitar Hero and paying for songs. Once the franchise has played itself out Activision will just fire the team, and start looking at another franchise to exploit. Which is all this really about. They are testing the waters to see what they can get away with.

Exactly, more people need to realize this obvious reality.

 

[stop!theradio]

I don't understand these accusations of paranoia.

Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear.

...and while you may not literally be "paranoid" about it - it scares you and lots of other people. You fear that this will open up a new, terrible opportunity for publishers to make us pay to play. So - calling it whatever term you'd like (go ahead, take your pick, it doesn't matter) - it still stands.

...and there you go again with all of the crap about how this will lead to the demise of gaming. That's fine, Fail. I already know your opinion on it. You don't need to shove it down my throat because I know how you feel about the situation. As stated, again, for the billionth time in a row - I simply don't agree with your view on the events that may come as a result of this, but I DO know how you feel about it. That's it.

 

[Shalafi]

I don't have an anxiety or fear of it, I KNOW that's the direction we are headed in.

Do not put words in my mouth, thank you.

I did not say it will lead to the demise of gaming, I said it would lead to Call of Duty as a franchise going down into the shitter, which is a direction it's already been headed in.

Again, RTFP and don't put words in my mouth. If you're gonna quote or respond to me, at least try to retain some modicum of accuracy in what I post and say.

 

[stop!theradio]

You're here supporting them all the way through this.

It's ok man, I get it, you just support the notion that we should all bend over for our Activision overlords and Supreme Dear Leader Bobby "Cash Money" Kotick.

...and THIS is where the problem begins. YOU are the one making bullshit accusations. Saying I'm supporting them in the demise of gaming. I've played the games. I enjoy them, plain and simple. I saw a game on the shelf that looked interesting so I bought it and happened to enjoy it. What, am I not supposed to enjoy them because you don't? Shit, you don't even know if you enjoy them yet because you've only played the first game in the series lmao. I don't even know who the hell Bobby Kotic is! This garbage you keep spouting has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I've talked about in the thread. Do I have to reiterate it all again, Fail? Come on man, seriously, this is getting silly.

 

[stop!theradio]

I don't have an anxiety or fear of it, I KNOW that's the direction we are headed in.

Do not put words in my mouth, thank you.

I did not say it will lead to the demise of gaming, I said it would lead to Call of Duty as a franchise going down into the shitter, which is a direction it's already been headed in.

Again, RTFP and don't put words in my mouth. If you're gonna quote or respond to me, at least try to retain some modicum of accuracy in what I post and say.

Don't play dumb. You know EXACTLY what you've said in many, MANY different threads. I'd quote you but I've lost count of all of the threads you go shit on. You only said for yourself just 2 posts ago that it's not only about CoD, but ANY game. And my mistake - you don't fear it bringing on a big change - you "KNOW" it's going to. LMAO!

Oh jeeze, Fail.

 

[Shalafi]

The Wall Street Journal reports publisher Activision Blizzard will likely charge less than $8 a month for stuff such as downloadable map packs and statistical analysis. Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick says the subscription fee is a necessity because the customer service infrastructure for the service requires an "enormous investment."

IWnet has no infrastructure to speak of, it's merely nothing more than a P2P matchmaking service, there are no dedicated servers, and they have said there will be no dedicated servers, and with that being the case, there's no "enormous investment" to be made.

It's a classic straw man argument.

It's no different than cell phone companies charging you $30 a month for unlimited texting even though most text messages are 2 KB or less and to transmit a gigabyte of data over their network infrastructure only costs them FOUR cents, if you do a little math, you'll realize you can send a couple hundred thousand text messages for only FOUR cents.

This is nothing more than gouging, pure and simple. There is no "service" or "benefits" being offered as true to the gamer or end user here.

 

[Shalafi]

Don't play dumb. You know EXACTLY what you've said in many, MANY different threads. I'd quote you but I've lost count of all of the threads you go shit on. You only said for yourself just 2 posts ago that it's not only about CoD, but ANY game. And my mistake - you don't fear it bringing on a big change - you "KNOW" it's going to. LMAO!

Oh jeeze, Fail.

I'm going to cease arguing with you, you're not interested in a logical or objective discussoin, just nothing more than pointless prattle ossified by you misconstruing what I post.

I'm obdurate, you're obdurate.

However, I'm right, and you are wrong.

 

[stop!theradio]

However, I'm right, and you are wrong.

..and this, ladies and gentlemen - boys and girls - is my problem with Fail.

Thank ye olde heavens it's over.

 

[Shalafi]

..and this, ladies and gentlemen - boys and girls - is my problem with Fail.

Thank ye olde heavens it's over.

Thanks for proving my point that you aren't interested in a logical and coherent discussion of the facts.

 

[stop!theradio]

Thanks for proving my point that you aren't interested in a logical and coherent discussion of the facts.

Facts? Like how you know for a fact this series will take down gaming completely?

 

[Shalafi]

IWnet has no infrastructure to speak of, it's merely nothing more than a P2P matchmaking service, there are no dedicated servers, and they have said there will be no dedicated servers, and with that being the case, there's no "enormous investment" to be made.

It's a classic straw man argument.

It's no different than cell phone companies charging you $30 a month for unlimited texting even though most text messages are 2 KB or less and to transmit a gigabyte of data over their network infrastructure only costs them FOUR cents, if you do a little math, you'll realize you can send a couple hundred thousand text messages for only FOUR cents.

This is nothing more than gouging, pure and simple. There is no "service" or "benefits" being offered as true to the gamer or end user here.

Respond to this please.

 

[stop!theradio]

IWnet has no infrastructure to speak of, it's merely nothing more than a P2P matchmaking service, there are no dedicated servers, and they have said there will be no dedicated servers, and with that being the case, there's no "enormous investment" to be made.

It's a classic straw man argument.

I don't follow you, here. You're talking about something that has nothing to do with the "Elite service.

It's no different than cell phone companies charging you $30 a month for unlimited texting even though most text messages are 2 KB or less and to transmit a gigabyte of data over their network infrastructure only costs them FOUR cents, if you do a little math, you'll realize you can send a couple hundred thousand text messages for only FOUR cents.

How else is business supposed to run? If these cell phone companies (or ANY other company in the world, ever) only charged customers the equivalent of what they pay, then how would they sustain themselves? ANY and EVERY business charges premiums. If you bought, say, cheese from a farmer and sold it at your grocery store for the same price you bought it - what would be the point? Business runs on premiums, and that's that.

This is nothing more than gouging, pure and simple. There is no "service" or "benefits" being offered as true to the gamer or end user here.

...which is why I've stated time and time again that this "Elite" service is NOT something I'd pay for. Seriously - I know you know I've stated it many, many times. I'm just wondering why you're choosing to ignore it...? If someone else wants to, then that's fine with me. I, personally, don't think that people biting on this "Elite" deal will change the MW series or gaming itself in any sort of big way. The fact is that the service just doesn't seem worth it to me, as to where it will seem like a great deal to the person next to me.

 

[Shalafi]

I don't follow you, here. You're talking about something that has nothing to do with the "Elite service.



How else is business supposed to run? If these cell phone companies (or ANY other company in the world, ever) only charged customers the equivalent of what they pay, then how would they sustain themselves? ANY and EVERY business charges premiums. If you bought, say, cheese from a farmer and sold it at your grocery store for the same price you bought it - what would be the point? Business runs on premiums, and that's that.



...which is why I've stated time and time again that this "Elite" service is NOT something I'd pay for. Seriously - I know you know I've stated it many, many times. I'm just wondering why you're choosing to ignore it...? If someone else wants to, then that's fine with me. I, personally, don't think that people biting on this "Elite" deal will change the MW series or gaming itself in any sort of big way. The fact is that the service just doesn't seem worth it to me, as to where it will seem like a great deal to the person next to me.

You didn't even read the original article Steve posted, go figure. If you don't understand big words like "infrastructure" and "enormous investment" and the meanings and reasonings behind those choice of words, then you probably have no standing to discuss the business and economics of what's going on here, since you don't understand it to begin with.

If you don't see the straw man in how "stats and map packs" requiring an "enormous investment" for a non-existent "infrastructure" then there is nothing anybody can do for you.


Do you understand how IW.net works? Do you know the concept and reason for dedicated servers? Do you know why P2P matchmaking is so undesireable? Do you know why monthly fees for a FPS game are bad?

Again, did you even read the article? The article states that it's nothing more than a cash grab, and that other companies are watching to see if it works, so they can follow suit.

How is that good for gamers?

Is this stuff beyond your comprehension? Are you even sure you're qualified to talk about these things?

 

[Shalafi]

Activision may be asshats, but they're not stupid. They're not going to require a pay to play portion of their games until they test the waters of the market with something first. Something exactly like the "elite" service that has been described. I understand where you're coming from, and no, this version of CoD does not require anyone to pay a monthly fee for the basic online service. However, the statements Kotick has made, the direction he has tried to lead the industry thus far, as well as seeing the (de)evolution of the games he has been involved with as a result is setting off alarm bells in many of our heads.

The latest Call of Duty games have been some of the biggest torch-bearers for the $60 price tag that we're now seeing all the big titles release at. One can argue that the cost of living and other expenses to make these games have also been on the rise, but when we see quarter after quarter of profits from Activision, I really start to wonder if the extra 20% of revenue they generate by marking up the game is really necessary. What have they done with this? Well, they've certainly haven't rewarded the people that have brought them this good fortune. In fact, they have driven most of them away due to their unrelenting demands and the lack of creative liberties they are willing to allow their developers to explore. See the entire debacle last year which saw many of the developers working on the CoD team up and leave for many of these reasons. Hell, even Bobby Kotick has admitted himself that at one point his goal at Activision was to take the fun out of making games as well as foster an atmosphere of fear, pessimism and skepticism.

Most people don't seem to care about this, and buy the games anyway - essentially justifying Kotick's principles. The thing is that CoD is making mountains of cash while offering players... what exactly? over the previous versions? Ten years ago, the content they released would make a passable expansion pack in the range of $30. Today, it's being sold as a full game for $60, and I am telling you when I compare it to other games which have tried to evolve their formula as opposed to just regurgitate it year after year, I cannot imagine what justification anyone would have for these higher price tags. However, people pay and the trend continues. We are now seeing content that would probably have been included within the initial price tag, or perhaps in a DLC, being moved into a monthly (and more profitable) pricing scheme. And the additional value we are getting out of this is where exactly?

Sure, you play it for the single-player, I'm sure that's all. So the thought of spending money on this does not even cross your mind. It's a non-issue for you. However, for the many multiplayer gamers which enjoy CoD, and people who actually care for the direction the industry is headed in as a whole, it's an alarming and unsettling move. If this is successful, how long will it be before Kotick gets his wish of a subscription-based CoD game? If it succeeds, how long before others follow suit? Are people really so oblivious to the industry that they don't know where these things are headed?

The services offered by this are still a big unknown, we have no way of knowing how well they will deliver and what the full extent of these benefits will be for the players. What I do know is that other games are still adding new content and free maps years after their release. CoH's final patch just last week added several new maps for free to a 5-year old game. You can sure as hell bet that 4 years from now Activision won't be release free map-packs for Blops. Even if publishers are not likely to release extra content for free these days, they have the option of allowing their product to benefit from increased value given to it by modifications and player-driven content - which has been all but removed from the lineup of CoD games.

You may not play modifications, but they sure as hell add value to your products. So yes, I am getting less value for my dollar if I look at a CoD game, because I know that what I am getting is going to be limited to what the bites of the game provide, and whatever table scraps the publisher is willing to throw at the title while they're working full speed on a new release for next year. I am not going to even try to explain to you the difference between the cartridge example you used and todays model, but at least for the PC games these days, a large portion of them are delivered electronically, which means that the distribution cost is significantly lower than having to design, produce and ship a hardware-based ROM module.

I don't know how you're getting more value for your dollar. These games are as scripted as hollywood movies. Quicksaves and autosaves have been around for over a decade, back when a good game would provide well over 12 hours of Single-player content. Just because the latest offerings don't live up to that, doesn't mean that the rest of us have to accept this ridiculous notion that the way it is is just the way it is. Even now, I am finding plenty of games that are giving me more hours of single-player enjoyment than I can find time for, and I am not spending more than half of what they're asking for the next 6 hour CoD campaign. If the only game you can think of that provided an exceptional amount of content for the price is Half-Life, then you're beyond help.

Perhaps the difference between you and me is that I like to see games advance, change and progress. I like to see new gameplay models be introduced and see gameplay standards being tossed out the window and redefined with every new release of a game. Keeping the good, reworking the bad, increasing the scope, the options and the gameplay value of the game. I would be willing to pay CoD prices for games like that. But not for a rehashed, regurgitated version of last years' offerings. Not at all.

So while you may enjoy what CoD has to offer, there are plenty of people vocalizing their opposing opinions. Since you don't even play the multiplayer apparently, there is no loss of value for you, but as you can see, those that do play multiplayer feel significantly impacted by this, as they should. Why are you trying to tell them otherwise? If you enjoy the scripted on-rails run-of-the-mill hollywood action movie experience that CoD attempts to deliver then go ahead and continue buying it for that. But when other areas of the game are significantly affected by the changes that affect the value of the product, don't go telling them that it doesn't simply because YOU are unaffected.

This is one of the best posts in this thread, thank you.

 

[stop!theradio]

You didn't even read the original article Steve posted, go figure. If you don't understand big words like "infrastructure" and "enormous investment" and the meanings and reasonings behind those choice of words, then you probably have no standing to discuss the business and economics of what's going on here, since you don't understand it to begin with.

If you don't see the straw man in how "stats and map packs" requiring an "enormous investment" for a non-existent "infrastructure" then there is nothing anybody can do for you.


Do you understand how IW.net works? Do you know the concept and reason for dedicated servers? Do you know why P2P matchmaking is so undesireable? Do you know why monthly fees for a FPS game are bad?

Again, did you even read the article? The article states that it's nothing more than a cash grab, and that other companies are watching to see if it works, so they can follow suit.

How is that good for gamers?

Is this stuff beyond your comprehension? Are you even sure you're qualified to talk about these things?

Like usual, you're taking everything out of context. When he talks "investment" and "infrastructure", he's talking about for this new service. Not a nonexistent dedicated server system - something that we don't even know the game will have or not yet.

...but there you go, as paranoid as ever.

 

[Shalafi]

Like usual, you're taking everything out of context. When he talks "investment" and "infrastructure", he's talking about for this new service. Not a nonexistent dedicated server system - something that we don't even know the game will have or not yet.

...but there you go, as paranoid as ever.

RTFA

 

[stop!theradio]

RTFA

Been there, done that.

"subscription fee is a necessity because the customer service infrastructure for the service requires an "enormous investment.""

So you think the customer service for this Elite program will appear like a fucking Pokemon out of nowhere? There needs to be an entirely new system, or INFRASTRUCTURE in place for this system. New system, new service, new complaints and customers to deal with. An investment must be made, a new system must be put into place.

Are you sure you read the article? Because I've gone over it about 4 times already and it seems to me that you're turning this into something it's not. Like usual. This "service" (or whatever you'd like to call it, Fail), is completely optional. 100%, and if people don't want to buy it - that's fine - no penalty on them. They can go ahead and purchase whatever map pack separately. As has been the standard for the past X amount of years.

Obviously you see this service as something negative or bad. That's fine. I don't see it the same way. I'm like a broken record here. If you think you're somehow going to make me see this whole thing your way, then you're wrong. And I'll say it over and over and over and over and over and...

Get the point? There's nothing in the article I'm missing. What YOU are missing, though, is that you won't make me see the err of my ways by continually acting like I'm somehow wildly misunderstanding the article. You simply see it one way and I see it another.

 

[stop!theradio]

...and don't try to pull the whole "no because they're gonna offer things that should be free anyways!" crap, either. We've had that discussion, too. Stuff like new maps, modes, and extra content has never been initially free. It's almost ALWAYS cost money. This system seems to offer stuff that you wouldn't get for free in the game, anyways.

The day that I have to pay $60 and then $8 a month just to keep playing the campaign is the day that I'll be raging like you are at this whole debacle. Until then, though, I'm staying optimistic.

 

[Shalafi]

Been there, done that.

"subscription fee is a necessity because the customer service infrastructure for the service requires an "enormous investment.""

So you think the customer service for this Elite program will appear like a fucking Pokemon out of nowhere? There needs to be an entirely new system, or INFRASTRUCTURE in place for this system. New system, new service, new complaints and customers to deal with. An investment must be made, a new system must be put into place.

Are you sure you read the article? Because I've gone over it about 4 times already and it seems to me that you're turning this into something it's not. Like usual. This "service" (or whatever you'd like to call it, Fail), is completely optional. 100%, and if people don't want to buy it - that's fine - no penalty on them. They can go ahead and purchase whatever map pack separately. As has been the standard for the past X amount of years.

Obviously you see this service as something negative or bad. That's fine. I don't see it the same way. I'm like a broken record here. If you think you're somehow going to make me see this whole thing your way, then you're wrong. And I'll say it over and over and over and over and over and...

Get the point? There's nothing in the article I'm missing. What YOU are missing, though, is that you won't make me see the err of my ways by continually acting like I'm somehow wildly misunderstanding the article. You simply see it one way and I see it another.

Ah, yes, the old "I know it's shit, it smells like shit, but it actually isn't shit" argument.

 

[Shalafi]

...and don't try to pull the whole "no because they're gonna offer things that should be free anyways!" crap, either. We've had that discussion, too. Stuff like new maps, modes, and extra content has never been initially free. It's almost ALWAYS cost money. This system seems to offer stuff that you wouldn't get for free in the game, anyways.

The day that I have to pay $60 and then $8 a month just to keep playing the campaign is the day that I'll be raging like you are at this whole debacle. Until then, though, I'm staying optimistic.

Devs have been doing it for years as a way to add more value to consumers for their products, it's how they build brand loyalty.

Do you not realize that the map packs for MW2 were mediocre and some of those maps were just imports from MW1?

Do you even play multiplayer? Why the hell would you pay $15 for a map pack? It doesn't make sense to.

That's exactly what has opened the door to this new "Elite" service that offers nothing of any real value to the end user.

You also do realize that CoD is a franchise that wants to have new releases yearly, right? So what are you really getting for your money?

Nothing really, no real innovation of consequence, except innovation in ways to nickel and dime the end user.

It's like squeezing blood from a rock.

 

[stop!theradio]

Fail - I don't see it your way, you don't see it my way. We'll just have to agree to disagree at this point. That much is clear by now.

 

[beowulf7]

Fail and stop ... thanks for the popcorn material.

 

[The Neo Zero]

Remind me again how much money WoW rakes in every month after all the bills for electric, servers, employees, server maintenance, etc etc.. what's that millions in profit you say?