Activision Unveils New Call of Duty Online Service

Sixties Spidey

New member
Jan 24, 2008
3,299
0
0
TheEvilCheese said:
TheRightToArmBears said:
You know, so long as the core online play is unaffected I don't really care. I won't get it, but I don't mind it being there.

In any case, cue lots of bitching in 3,2,1..
Entirely agree with you, but I have a feeling they will be advertising the crap out of it in-game in MW3.

And hasn't Halo had pretty much this (admittedly we don't know the final content of Elite yet, but I digress) for four years? for free? Just wondering how they can justify charging for this sort of service.
You had to pay... around 800 MS points for a full year. It was for a service called Bungie Pro that allowed more file-sharing slots and allowed you to render films in Halo 3 in a format that a PC could read. It doesn't do clan support though. Halo 3 and Reach don't support those. But most of the things being advertised in the trailer are things that Bungie.net does.... for free. Heatmaps and statistics included.

I imagine that they'd do something like that for the Elite subscription. Either way, fuck no I won't subscribe to it. I haven't paid for a single Call of Duty map pack, and I'm sure as fuck not going to pay for a service that charges more than Xbox Live for a month. It's called being financially smart. And besides, we're seeing it from the perspective of the consoles. I mean, PC users have had this shit for absolutely free for a VERY long time.



HOWEVER: If, (and this is a very long shot) and only if there is some kind of extended community support that's permeated in the ACTUAL matchmaking process such as dedicated lobbies, sure, why not? I know it's meant to appeal to a certain kind of demographic. I'm probably not in it.
 

Antari

Music Slave
Nov 4, 2009
2,246
0
0
Thyunda said:
Antari said:
Thyunda said:
Antari said:
le argument
snip.
snip
Now I don't have beef with DLC. Especially not in role-playing games and such. I follow Valve's new philosophy - that games are interactive platforms, as opposed to narratives. I would rather pay for new quest chains in Fallout: New Vegas every now and then, instead of clearing out the whole game and waiting for the sequel...which would use the same engine and all sorts.
True there were some expansions that were hit and miss. But alot were DLC+ ... Not just a quest here or there.. or a tiny chain. But an entirely new area to wander into with a whole game's worth of new quests. Because they used the same engine, it kept costs & time down and added to the pot to make the second game. That I can get behind. But these tiny little nickle and dime DLC jobs these days make me sick. Most of them are done before the game is even released and just sit waiting to bait people. I have a major beef with DLC the way it is today.

And you can still have an interactive platform without having your hands out like a beggar on a street corner. Considering how much money they take in, they really CAN afford to create DLC for free off the initial purchase profits and still afford to make the second game. Yes it does cost money to make these things, but not so much that they can't afford to eat up some of the costs. And maybe they won't be able to buy that 3rd Ferrari that year, but I really won't loose any sleep over that.
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
watch them hold a certain service for online play that almost forces the players to subscribe.

and yeah, your charging for what halo did better four years ago.

also, battlefield 3...nuff said. activision loses.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Ickorus said:
This really doesn't affect me in the slightest as I don't intend to buy any more CoD games after the steaming shit that is Black Op's but I gotta put one point forward:

Logan Westbrook said:
In an interview, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick defended the subscription fee, saying that Elite was a major undertaking, and it wouldn't be able to offer the same level of support if it was completely free.
Makes you wonder how Valve manages it.
Steam makes its money in other ways.
 

vrbtny

New member
Sep 16, 2009
1,959
0
0
tghm1801 said:
vrbtny said:
tghm1801 said:
Didn't Bungie do this for free?
So your comparing Bungie, the company which is probably the most in-touch and friendly with its community, to Activision? hoi hoi...

OT: Sounds a bit like a incentive not to pirate the game, but charging for it? Doesn't that destroy the whole point?
Considering your icon is a picture of Bobby Kotick saying 'Get him boys!' I get the impression that you feel negatively about Activision.
Yeah, you could say that. But who genuinely likes him? And, this guy's probably chosen the worst company to compare Activision to in this field. Who is the best developer to their fans? I think Bungie is probably one of the friendliest....
 

Olorune

New member
Jan 16, 2009
320
0
0
Funny trailer. Bad idea. Will not be buying because I'm already buying the $60 game and an Xbox Live subscription; I've payed enough already.
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
Antari said:
Thyunda said:
Antari said:
Thyunda said:
Antari said:
le argument
snip.
snip
Now I don't have beef with DLC. Especially not in role-playing games and such. I follow Valve's new philosophy - that games are interactive platforms, as opposed to narratives. I would rather pay for new quest chains in Fallout: New Vegas every now and then, instead of clearing out the whole game and waiting for the sequel...which would use the same engine and all sorts.
True there were some expansions that were hit and miss. But alot were DLC+ ... Not just a quest here or there.. or a tiny chain. But an entirely new area to wander into with a whole game's worth of new quests. Because they used the same engine, it kept costs & time down and added to the pot to make the second game. That I can get behind. But these tiny little nickle and dime DLC jobs these days make me sick. Most of them are done before the game is even released and just sit waiting to bait people. I have a major beef with DLC the way it is today.

And you can still have an interactive platform without having your hands out like a beggar on a street corner. Considering how much money they take in, they really CAN afford to create DLC for free off the initial purchase profits and still afford to make the second game. Yes it does cost money to make these things, but not so much that they can't afford to eat up some of the costs. And maybe they won't be able to buy that 3rd Ferrari that year, but I really won't loose any sleep over that.
Though you do need an insurance policy - Never make things at a loss. That's destined to go wrong. You cannot make free DLC indefinitely. I do share your sentiment that including DLC on the disc and then selling the unlock code is a horrible thing to do, and anybody that does it needs a freakin' slap.
But, what would happen if my gaming company...uh...AWESOME GAMES Inc. decided to make AWESOME DLC for free during the first few years of its existence. At some point, I'm going to need to start charging...perhaps my last game didn't sell too well. At the moment I start having to charge, there will be a massive outcry of OMG AWESOME GAMES Inc. SOLD OUT!!!
That's something you really can't risk.
 

VanBasten

New member
Aug 20, 2009
233
0
0
Logan Westbrook said:
Ickorus said:
This really doesn't affect me in the slightest as I don't intend to buy any more CoD games after the steaming shit that is Black Op's but I gotta put one point forward:

Logan Westbrook said:
In an interview, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick defended the subscription fee, saying that Elite was a major undertaking, and it wouldn't be able to offer the same level of support if it was completely free.
Makes you wonder how Valve manages it.
Steam makes its money in other ways.
While that is true, Kotick saying that "$1 billion in 40 days" CoD somehow doesn't have the money to implement such a thing for free is disingenuous at best.

Now I'm not saying that they shouldn't charge for it, every publisher wants to mooch out as much money out of their IP as possible, and a lot of people seem willing to pay for it so why shouldn't they charge, it's a free market, yay capitalism, and all that... but to play the "we'de go broke if you get this for free" card on CoD is insulting.
 

Mrsoupcup

New member
Jan 13, 2009
3,487
0
0
I bet 10 bucks even with elite you'll still have to pay 15$ for the map packs.
My guess is the "additional maps" are just maps cut from the full game.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
Xzi said:
MightyMole said:
Wait.. So they're starting to do pretty much the same thing Bungie does for free... And then expecting people to pay for it...

Ahaha...

Ahahahahahahahaha...

I get that its an optional service but... C'mon!
It's the same thing tons of developers offer for free. And yet there will be a shit ton of people that pay for it anyway. Which is the only reason they're implementing it. God I hate these fucking idiots ruining gaming by suggesting to developers that we're all willing to get bent over a barrel and take up the ass no matter what kind of P2P bullshit they implement.
Many gamers will fall for anything and the publishers (as well as the platform developers & retailers) know that. We have to vote with our wallets when they come up with schemes like this.
This one actually isn?t as evil as I was expecting it to be. It seems like Most of the things connected with the plan are things you?d have to pay more for anyway... Not that I would. There are however many die hard MW fanboys who will make this worth it for Act.
What I?m wondering about now is: how many places can we be charged for ?online? (or whatever they want to call it) because for this game you could potentially be paying the cable/sat company for internet service, paying the platform developer - MS for xbl, and now paying the publisher. I?m just surprised that gamestop hasn?t figured out a way to charge their fanboys for ?online.? They can get gamers to pay for anything.
I could easily skip this one but it will be up to my wife if we?re getting the game as she?ll want to play with her friends if they get it. However, I can guarantee that she won?t be paying any monthly fee for it.
 

Antari

Music Slave
Nov 4, 2009
2,246
0
0
Thyunda said:
Antari said:
Thyunda said:
Antari said:
Thyunda said:
Antari said:
le argument
snip.
snip
snip.
snip.
Though you do need an insurance policy - Never make things at a loss. That's destined to go wrong. You cannot make free DLC indefinitely. I do share your sentiment that including DLC on the disc and then selling the unlock code is a horrible thing to do, and anybody that does it needs a freakin' slap.
But, what would happen if my gaming company...uh...AWESOME GAMES Inc. decided to make AWESOME DLC for free during the first few years of its existence. At some point, I'm going to need to start charging...perhaps my last game didn't sell too well. At the moment I start having to charge, there will be a massive outcry of OMG AWESOME GAMES Inc. SOLD OUT!!!
That's something you really can't risk.
They don't have to make DLC indefinately. If they went back to the old expansions setting, it'd only be one DLC pack that would keep people employed between developing the ideas behind the next installment. The profits from the inital purchase of the game if its popular will usually account for ALOT more than either the costs of developing the DLC or the next game. The popularity of inital sales should dictate weather DLC is even nessisary, and not an automatic thing. Besides most DLC is of the quality that older games would have included it on day 1. Either way they wouldn't be taking a loss on it, that you can be sure of.

These companies (EA, Activision) are making enough money that they don't need to worry about much of anything, including pissing off half of the customer base. Because with children being born all the time they have a nearly limitless supply of new customers who haven't been screwed over yet. All they need to do is make it shiny and it'll grab someone. Its been a problem with the industry since the mid 80's, continued overpopulation these days really isn't helping. Most other industries actually have to worry about customer satisfaction over the long term. In this case they only need to care about you for 1-2 months out of a game cycle of say 2 years. When the next game comes out, the actual impact of you returning to the series is negligable to them. There will always be someone to replace you.

Thats why I just choose not to buy from them entirely. And encourage others to do the same. Until they see some actual impact, which they haven't in around 15 years, they aren't going to get better but only worse.
 

GaltarDude1138

New member
Jan 19, 2011
307
0
0
This is why Black Ops was awesome on 360: Everything worked, and it was free. On top of the sub fee I pay to MS, you can forget it.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
VanBasten said:
While that is true, Kotick saying that "$1 billion in 40 days" CoD somehow doesn't have the money to implement such a thing for free is disingenuous at best.

Now I'm not saying that they shouldn't charge for it, every publisher wants to mooch out as much money out of their IP as possible, and a lot of people seem willing to pay for it so why shouldn't they charge, it's a free market, yay capitalism, and all that... but to play the "we'de go broke if you get this for free" card on CoD is insulting.
That's not actually what Kotick said. What he said was that it wouldn't be as good if it was a free service, which I think is a fair comment.
 

TheTaco007

New member
Sep 10, 2009
1,339
0
0
I like how they claim they wouldn't be able to offer it if it were free.

Oh really? Cause it's not like it's EXACTLY THE SAME THING as what Bungie is doing with Bungie.net for Halo Reach ENTIRELY FOR FREE.
 

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
So if I'm not mistaken this video is saying that Activision wants to charge a subscription fee for you (among other things) to able to look at your game stats. Yeah that is not happening, unfortunately I know many people who will eat this simply because it's Call of Duty *sigh*. At least I can say thank you to Activision for giving me another reason for having not purchased any of their games since Modern Warfare 1.

captcha: modern atemose
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
Antari said:
Very good point. You have me there, good sir. However, I'm still gonna buy MW3 if I can afford it. Admittedly, Skyrim, L.A. Noire, Duke Nukem Forever, Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Batman: Arkham City, well, you get the point, are also on that list. MW3 isn't really a priority buy.

Oh, and a new copy of New Vegas with all the DLC. AND I have to get another Xbox 360 first. It's not looking good.