Activision Unveils New Call of Duty Online Service

[.[B@lL15T1C].]

This shit just confirms that ID is actively trying to fuck up the community.
MW1 was great, MW2 was good but a few annoyances.
MW3 will be tested before I even buy it. This crap should be free.
Brink does it for free. (even though it isnt online yet) Battlefield too in some degree.
Bungie does it for free. And most of this stuff is free with black ops. Exept the whole friends stuff.

And this

I have no doubt they're going to be getting a lot of subscribers but $8 a month is pretty expensive for what you're getting. I mean, I could be farming troll ears for that amount, they'll need to throw in something more appealing than that to pull me in.

You get almost nothing.

Although it's not an FPS, starcraft 2 has a global league system with matchmaking, ladders and tournaments. Also for free.

 

[Antari]

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.

My point still stands, while yes, it wouldn't be as good if it was free(whatever that "it" is as we still don't know) that doesn't mean it couldn't be as good if it was free if Activision decided to lower their existing profit margins by just a slight bit.

So to say that money is the issue why they have to charge for it, as if their original intent was to create something that would be at no extra charge and not something that would further increase their profits, well, that is kinda BS.

You're making quite the assumptions there. You don't know how much the service will cost to run, so you can't make claims about how much it will or won't impact Activision's profit margins.

Besides, the subscription is an optional part of an optional service. It's a bizarre thing to get upset about.

Its not really bizzare to get upset about... because this is just the first step in a mutation to something that is entirely unnessisary in the first place. And in this case those assumptions can be made fairly easily for costs versus profits, Activision displays the information for investors and anyone who bothers to look them up. And they are quite lopsided.

Its optional now, tomorrow it may be manditory. It'd be better if they slowed the gravy train now, before the wreck. Driving it faster and faster ... well, we've all been to youtube and seen where that goes. The continued destruction of appriciation for the customer in this industry and specifically from Activision is what makes me think about getting a new hobby all together.

 

[Smooth Operator]

So it's essentially their Battlenet, only worse
Well it's nice to see Activision isn't straying from their usual franchise rape.

 

[Dansrage]

Now, normally i don't mind this kind of thing so much, i pay for Xbox Live, i buy map packs and DLC for games i like, i don't really like COD but i have played through MW1 and 2 (BLOPS wouldn't work on my PC because it's a broken console port of a pile of shit, good job i pirated it) and while they're not great games they're enjoyable on the first playthrough. They're basically summer action movies, but for videogames.
However, imagine this:
Step 1: You buy COD:MW3 for $70
Step 2: You pay $50 for a year of XBL to play the game online
Step 3: You buy the day-1 DLC map pack for $20
Step 4: You pay $10 to be able to access the game you payed for
Coming to a grand total of:
$150

The price of a games console, to be able to play a game, and play it online. $80 of which is a fee to access features in the game you have payed for, which is more than the price of the game itself.

Or, you know, i can just buy BFBC2 for $30 on Steam and play it free forever?

 

[rsvp42]

Yeah, something about this rubs me the wrong way. I'm not really a CoD player (not opposed to it, just haven't really gotten into it), but some of those features mentioned sound like they're just charging for stuff that should be included in a sequel. Most game series like to add that kind of stuff to make the sequel more appealing and drive up sales, but Activision wants to charge extra for them?

Not sure if I can defend that and I'm usually pretty chill when it comes to company's pricing decisions.

 

[TheScottishFella]

Liked the video, couldn't care less about ELITE.

 

[Blaster395]

Looks like a clone of bungie.net but you have to pay for it.

 

[Twad]

Activision : We love your money more than we love the games.

 

[Jakub324]

I might still by the game, but I refuse to pay the subscription fee. Activision have just become money grabbing bastards like everyone else.

 

[William MacKay]

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..

looks like the call of duty series has rely gone down the drain.

you called it.
anyway this doesnt look good. not because the idea is shit, but because people dont want to pay for more stuff to get extra stuff.

 

[Antari]

I might still by the game, but I refuse to pay the subscription fee. Activision have just become money grabbing bastards like everyone else.

Oh believe me .. this is not a new thing. They are kind of in a tie with Electronic Arts as to who started it all.

 

[Grufflenark]

The best part was the dance.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101503-Kotick-Wants-Call-of-Duty-Subscriptions-Tomorrow

Tomorrow Never Comes, Kotick.

 

[Dansrage]

Looks like a clone of bungie.net but you have to pay for it.

This is what annoys me, it IS Bungie.net, but you have to pay for it, and not only does Koticvision know this very damn well, they're also willing to make you pay money for it while people playing other franchises get the same damn thing absolutely free.
To top it all off they're telling you that this "revolutionary service" (that other franchises have been doing for years) is revolutionary and super special and you should feel lucky that you get to participate.
They make it sound as if they're doing you a favor by ripping you off. They don't even try to hide it, it's blatant and insulting.

What's worse is, if only more people realised this and it dented their sales, they would change their policy in a heartbeat for fear of losing money, yet people KEEP PAYING FOR THIS DAMN STUFF as if their wallets can only hold so much cash before it starts to overflow.

 

[MarsProbe]

Eh, while I know of some people who would likely get a major kick out of this (and gladly stump up for it), it's not for me. I couldn't really invest in COD that much to pay for a service like this.

The video was quite amusing though. Well, up to the bit about the lavendar soap anyway, I didn't watch any further beyond that.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

To be honest the video looked more interesting than the feature itself, gg Kotick

My thoughts exactly. The trailer for it was great, however, I don't really see a point in paying the fee. I'm already paying $59.99 for the game every year because its become the FPS equivalent to Madden. I think I'll pass on this...pass on it quickly.

 

[Rewdalf]

$5 a month for live
$8 a month for "special" call of duty online goodies.

Yeah, no.
I'm displeased with the unbalanced gameplay as it is, why pay an extra live subscription and a half to see that bullshit get graphed?

 

[Fursnake]

Thank you Activision for helping me overcome my aversion to playing fps games on a console instead of the PC, because I stopped buying CoD games after MW2 and I will only rent them.