Pay-for-Play Call Of Duty Multiplayer Fee Coming

Lightworker said:
Think about how many of those 12 year old fuck sticks WON'T be in the game if they have to pay, hmmm...
Click to expand...

Then it'd apply to WoW too, and we all know how many kids play WoW (that is indeed subscription based). They'll just get mommy & daddy's credit card and off they go into their subscription based fantasy land.
 
i refuse to do pay to play for something that shouldnt be. I'm even willing to give up gaming all together if this is what it comes to.
 
Dion said:
Ummm.. Xbox Live makes you pay for a service that is free everywhere else. Sorry to say.. To many idiots in the world. This will only make activision richer. It amazes me how many people get suckered into games. 10$ extra for PC games.. 50$ a year for XBL.. etc etc
Click to expand...

But here is the difference, you have to pay $50 to Microsoft for XBL plus however much its going to be for the game that you want to play. Thats where it starts to get stupid, and thats when you know greed has taken over. Its no longer about the games and players but about the bottom line dollar, and everything starts to suffer for that.
 
weuntouchable said:
If they charge to play there will be no multiplayer COD. There is way too much free competition from the Battlefield Games, Day of Defeat, and probably others that offer a similar experience for free. No way in hell does a subscription service find any market.
Click to expand...



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh

That's funny bro....competition from day of defeat.... Maybe before valve released the piece of shit known as DOD Source. I played that series since it was a mod in beta, once valve bought it out and released the source version that game died.

And say that last part to World of Warcraft.



/can't wait for the next video game industry crash.
 
SomeoneElse said:
But here is the difference, you have to pay $50 to Microsoft for XBL plus however much its going to be for the game that you want to play. Thats where it starts to get stupid, and thats when you know greed has taken over. Its no longer about the games and players but about the bottom line dollar, and everything starts to suffer for that.
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it was never "about the games and players." It is about making a product people want to buy at a given dollar amount.

Frankly, Xbox Live is worth the $50 a year compared to what you get for free from PS3 and Nintendo (and yes, PC is free, but Xbox Live is a much easier to use, unified experience for everyone).
 
4saken said:
You underestimate the power of the COD juggernaut.
Click to expand...

If it's like the latest multi-player component of CoD black Ops, they can keep it, since prestige offers no benefits aside from a unique emblem, to show you prestige'd...oh and another weapons slot, so you can have a total of 10 (if you go through the 15 levels of prestige) configs of the same fecking gun!

Not to mention the P2P server crap...is crap, unless you play on the PC, I cannot even keep track of how many times someone has killed me through lag, when I have emptied an entire clip on them, or the host drops the connection due to a system crash, rage quit, or the Activision Stats server had an epileptic seizure.

I play the game, but I don't think it's worth paying $65 (including CA tax) which is a bit steep for 4 hours of single player action, fortunately the multi-player makes it a little less of a sore point, and probably the only saving grace with Black Ops (even though it was engineered by a bunch of drunken monkeys).

MW2 was a far better game, single and multi-player.

I will not pay a monthly charge for something that, if Black Ops multi-player is anything to go by, is arse, I will find my jollies of FPS multi-player somewhere else...maybe go back to MW2 as that was more fun.
 
LMAO. Activision keeps digging their own graves. If they do this it will be the beginning of the end for their PC market. DICE/EA are looking to capitalize on the stale COD franchise with BF3 this fall, and they will have to really up the ante this time around. I'm sure the console kiddies will eat it up initially, but even they have their limits. Pay-to-Play has rarely taken off in the FPS genre and the only chance it will happen is if it becomes an MMO and new content comes out regularly. The only pay-to-play FPS game that I can think of was the original Planetside.They would need to leverage every bit of experience they can from Blizzard to make this happen, and even then it wouldn't be a sure thing.

PC gamers are willing to do the pay-to-play model, there just has to be an amazing reason to do it. The game simply has to be out of this world and offer things that no other game can, but players will not switch to this model if it is the same thing everyone else has.
 
I thought the term 'value added' was a corporate euphemism for 'a huge cock up the customer's ass'.
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
LMAO. Activision keeps digging their own graves. If they do this it will be the beginning of the end for their PC market. DICE/EA are looking to capitalize on the stale COD franchise with BF3 this fall, and they will have to really up the ante this time around. I'm sure the console kiddies will eat it up initially, but even they have their limits. Pay-to-Play has rarely taken off in the FPS genre and the only chance it will happen is if it becomes an MMO and new content comes out regularly. The only pay-to-play FPS game that I can think of was the original Planetside.They would need to leverage every bit of experience they can from Blizzard to make this happen, and even then it wouldn't be a sure thing.

PC gamers are willing to do the pay-to-play model, there just has to be an amazing reason to do it. The game simply has to be out of this world and offer things that no other game can, but players will not switch to this model if it is the same thing everyone else has.
Click to expand...

+Agree+. Activision must have hired a bunch of losers from the Telco industry. It seems they have taken a page from their business model. Just listen to the complaints of people with cell phones. What happened to the ingame advertisements that was going to make up some losses(ahem) for giving us some freebees. or lower prices. This after bragging to their shareholders of a record breaking year. Selfish pigs the lot of them.
 
I do actually have fun with the CoD games online, but I won't pay more for them. There are other games to play. I doubt I'll even pick MW3 up with BF3 coming out.
 
I remember when APB was introduced as a subscription game...
Playing in the beta with friends, I have to admit was one of the funnest gaming experiences I've had, but I had a feeling it was going to fail as soon as it was officially released. If a game like APB (A better version of Grand Theft Auto turned multiplayer) fails when it is pay-to-play, there is no way that a game like COD would be successful unless there are some major changes and innovations.
 
Katalysis said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it was never "about the games and players." It is about making a product people want to buy at a given dollar amount.

Frankly, Xbox Live is worth the $50 a year compared to what you get for free from PS3 and Nintendo (and yes, PC is free, but Xbox Live is a much easier to use, unified experience for everyone).
Click to expand...

sorry but steam offers a better service then live for free and psn offers the core tings u expect from a online service. online lag free mp. for free
 
Steam is not even close to the same as Xbox Live, especially when it comes to usability. My copy of Mass Effect 2 I haven't been able to play on steam for two months for suddenly no reason can attest to that.
 
SuiteLemunaid said:
I remember when APB was introduced as a subscription game...
Playing in the beta with friends, I have to admit was one of the funnest gaming experiences I've had, but I had a feeling it was going to fail as soon as it was officially released. If a game like APB (A better version of Grand Theft Auto turned multiplayer) fails when it is pay-to-play, there is no way that a game like COD would be successful unless there are some major changes and innovations.
Click to expand...

APB didn't fail because it was pay-to-play, it failed because the developer released with no cash in the bank and a few billion in debt. They literally could not pay their employees, everyone there was working for free until the servers were repossessed three months later.
 
Ualdayan;1036833971 but in this case the analyst is using this remark form Activision: ''value added said:
If you string enough buzz words together in the same sentence the words begin to lose meaning.
Click to expand...
 
I was interested in reading more until I say that it was a Michael Pachter quote. I swear that dude just says the most retarded shit he can think of to see if people run with it.
 
Maximus825 said:
I was interested in reading more until I say that it was a Michael Pachter quote. I swear that dude just says the most retarded shit he can think of to see if people run with it.
Click to expand...

^ this

But if it is true, that means X360 players, who comprise the largest share of active CoD MP accounts, will now be paying to play at every step of the connection. Once to their ISP, once to MS, once to Activision.

Honestly the only way to stop these practices is to stop investing in these greedy shit companies' games.

You cannot really put "innovative" and CoD in the same sentence without eliciting chuckles IMO. This series hasn't been good but for CoD and CoD4, and WaW's flamethrower was good fun for about 20 minutes.
 
Seventyfive said:
The one thing I would pay up to $15/mo for is team balancing and cheat prevention. I don't play COD but in BC2 teams are constantly stacked so it's a gamble if you're going to be the raper or rapee and there's no vote-kick system so if a server has a hacker everyone is screwed. If I could get on and have the first server I pick deliver close and challenging matches, I would pay for that.
Click to expand...

+1..I would gladly pay a monthly fee if they could guarantee me no hacks or cheats in the server..sadly, I don't ever see that happening.
 
What will they have, all of 24 players? Wow, welcome to 2006?

With Battlefield 3 coming out, I hope COD gets the shit stomped out of them if they try the fee-to-play model for basic, crappy multiplayer. The maps are about as big as the spawn area alone in Battlefield.
 
Katalysis said:
Steam is not even close to the same as Xbox Live, especially when it comes to usability. My copy of Mass Effect 2 I haven't been able to play on steam for two months for suddenly no reason can attest to that.
Click to expand...

Steam is better for many reasons. it does exactly what xbox live does but free. You can no take screenshots of any game without using fraps. xbox live u cant do that at all and dont come back to me saying how that feature wont be usable by the masses because it would be

Just because you cant play me2 for whatever reasons make steam worse than live? in live you cant even play on dedicated servers. 9/10 games are stupid lag fested p2p. great service indeed.

what is your problem with ME2? it works fine for me and just about 99.9% of people who play it from steam. great service. does xbox live allow you to store your game saves in a cloud server? steam does. if xbox live doesnt thats another reason why xbox live members are getting bump raped by MS.

lesser features and it costs LMAO. pathetic. o and i have a xbox 360 elite btw so its not as if im a fanboy. i just dont like getting ripped off.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Steam is better for many reasons. it does exactly what xbox live does but free. You can no take screenshots of any game without using fraps. xbox live u cant do that at all and dont come back to me saying how that feature wont be usable by the masses because it would be

Just because you cant play me2 for whatever reasons make steam worse than live? in live you cant even play on dedicated servers. 9/10 games are stupid lag fested p2p. great service indeed.

what is your problem with ME2? it works fine for me and just about 99.9% of people who play it from steam. great service. does xbox live allow you to store your game saves in a cloud server? steam does. if xbox live doesnt thats another reason why xbox live members are getting bump raped by MS.

lesser features and it costs LMAO. pathetic. o and i have a xbox 360 elite btw so its not as if im a fanboy. i just dont like getting ripped off.
Click to expand...

That was just an example of the problems that are inherent with Steam and PC gaming in general that the average user never experiences with Xbox Live. The fact that your first complaint with Xbox Live is that you can't take screen shots shows me you have no idea what the majority of people want out of a video game. There's a reason the most popular games now are Farmville and the like.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Just because you cant play me2 for whatever reasons make steam worse than live? in live you cant even play on dedicated servers. 9/10 games are stupid lag fested p2p. great service indeed.
Click to expand...

This is really the reason that makes me wonder why I even pay. These should be at least some effort on their part to reduce lag.... SOMETHING. Granted a major part of live that makes it so great is that all my friends, family are already a part of it and everything really does work flawlessly in it. Most notably messaging, voice chat, parties, etc.

I don't even own a headset/mic for the PC.

I digress though. It's already shown that the majority of gaming "consumers" ARE willing to pay out the nose on multiple levels for even the most novel bullshit. I'm curious as to how much revenue is pulled from DLC that may or may have not been included in the original anyways.
 
It makes sense, Activision needs more money and charging people a subscription fee is the guarantee way of getting money instead of through retail sales. Activision is the publisher of WoW, so them seeing the benefit of that game with subscription based I can see why they are trying this out. Can they though keep people as interested in that game long enough like Counter Strike has for so many years? I kind of doubt it, usually with CS you have 500,000 at least playing daily and there is a lot of other games out there that compete.
 
I foresee 3 problems:

1. The double dip. I won't buy the game, then pay subscription fees. Choose one or the other. And If there are no purchase fees, how do they plan to keep people playing for 6+ months? I haven't played Black Ops in quite some time and that only came out in what, November?

2. If I'm paying subscription fees, I want new content.

3. Services like Xbox Live, while costing 5-10/month, are inherently different then this as they offer multiple different services, games, and demos. CoD offers CoD. That's it. I can't see how they plan to keep people subscribing... I just don't think people will tolerate something that is traditionally free becoming pay to play...
 
So what now? you gotta sit by your pc with a pile of coins feeding them into your card reader?
Posted via Mobile Device
 
I came into black ops only because it was free, otherwise I was not buying it. So I guess this is the end of something new that will be happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top