I remember Activision speaking about this before, but I also remember IW telling them to fuck right off. I wonder if Activision is making a second attempt.
Call of Duty to get WoW-Like Subscriptions?
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is retarded! I hate Activision! They're the anti-christ in the gaming industry! They'll cause the apocalypse! 2012!
We must act! We must act! We must burn Activision! Burn it into the ground! WHOSE WITH ME!?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is retarded! I hate Activision! They're the anti-christ in the gaming industry! They'll cause the apocalypse! 2012!
We must act! We must act! We must burn Activision! Burn it into the ground! WHOSE WITH ME!?
Matchmaking can work as a substitute for dedicated servers for people with certain needs in certain countries. That's probably the nicest thing I can say about it. If you're ok with cheaters/assholes that you can't kick, potential for heavy lag (unless you live in the US or some other "large" country with allot of MW2 players) and have no need for a community/clan then matchmaking is something for you! It would have worked as a alternative to dedicated servers, but not as a replacement. But yes, this is not the time nor the place to have a matchmaking vs. dedicated server discussion.Fire Daemon said:
I think most people that bought the game simply didn't know the difference between a matchmaking system and dedicated servers, they just wanted to play this really cool game that "everyone" was talking about. While I agree that people have an easier time understanding the value of money, I still think that if the hype becomes big enough then people will buy the game and pay for playing online anyway. Heck, some people might even think that ALL games have a subscription fee for online gaming. And then there's the gamers that think this is the coolest thing since sliced bread, that were going to buy and download any map/extra feature that IW/activision pumps out anyway. They're going to very happy since they don't have to go through the hassle of buying and downloading maps any longer. They just have to pay the subsciption fee and sit back while the maps/extras downloads.
No doubt one of the reasons why they chucked dedicated servers, so they could retain more control on the game/customer and impose this subscription or whatever other paid content they want to.
This... this warms my heart so much to see thisMajor Tom said:
I knew the PC community would manage to make this somehow, but so soon? That shows how awesome we really are And with we, I mean gamers in general.Anywho. Release all the pay-for-online games you want Activision. At least the PC community won't bend over to take it.
To my knowledge they haven't cleared that up yet. While I lack the bloodsucking mind of the average Activision employee, off the top of my head it could be content updates, maps, pay-to-use weapons, pay-to-use custom tournament options (on a fucking dedicated server perhaps?), pay-to-use extra music tracks, pay-to-use advanced character customization, and if they are really prepared to go all the way, pay-to-use slight player boosts, like increased speed, hell why not, who's gonna stop them? And, apart from that last one, all the other features are provided free of charge by other developers (Tf2, L4D, BF series etc etc etc).Slycne said:
i doubt they would stop access to what you are already getting without a subscription if it ever got implemented...
they just cant, you pay for a game, you get x y z...they cant just say, oh wait, we need to start charging you for 'y' otherwise you dont get it
can they?
if you ask me, its going to be things like, map packs, etc, the subscription fee might be for dedicated server support, but tbh, it would have to be extremly cheap for me to pay for it, like, no more than £1-2, i would rather just not play the game
I have gone off activision, they cut too many corners now, and to say they are affilated with blizzard, they are like polar opposites
blizzard listen to their community
they just cant, you pay for a game, you get x y z...they cant just say, oh wait, we need to start charging you for 'y' otherwise you dont get it
can they?
if you ask me, its going to be things like, map packs, etc, the subscription fee might be for dedicated server support, but tbh, it would have to be extremly cheap for me to pay for it, like, no more than £1-2, i would rather just not play the game
I have gone off activision, they cut too many corners now, and to say they are affilated with blizzard, they are like polar opposites
blizzard listen to their community
its just shocking isnt it, as much as I hate moaning about the ded server issue (because its getting us nowhere) they really pulled a fast one didnt they, i dont blame em cos everyone bought the bloody game anyway, ded servers or no, so the money is in their pocketsBaron Khaine said:
I just miss 64 player battles
anyway thanks for posting this comparison, its nice to know just how much i got screwed for
I haven't bought MW2 yet, and I doubt I will. This is the first time I have ever felt the need to boycott a game. I just can't justify rewarding them for releasing an inferior product and charging more for it. It's a joke, fuck 'em.
okay first of all, source this claim because if its true i wanna know where you got it fromCarnagath said:
cause afaik...the core bnet stuff, multiplayer matches etc...will be 100% free, they have already made that official, bnet will be free indefinately forever
they might charge for dlc...which is fair enough, but not a subscription, unless its for a premium
in which case I will view what the premium is, judge its value and either pay up or shut it
Its the same with activision, if what they offer justifies the cost, ill buy it, straight up...
It was a news post here at the escapist, I don't have time to search it right now though. Yes, core Battlenet 2.0 will be free, but Blizzard are looking for ways to monetize it. One of the examples offered by them was that if you want to make a custom tournament for your friends you are going to have to pay a certain sum of money, but they didn't clarify what else would be included in the "monetization". They also didn't clarify what "core Battle.net" actually means.TitsMcGee1804 said:
The thing that annoys me the most is how easily people bend over for crap like that. How ready they are to accept this treatment if it makes sense in a "financial way".
You know what, do you guys remember how Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne had no Orc campaign because it didn't really fit the story? Remember how Blizzard then made a separate orc campaign (which kicked ass) and released it episodically for free bundled with the occasional balance content patch of the game? Now, wasn't that nice of them? Would they have made a lot of money if they made you pay for that campaign? Hell yes. Even I would have probably bought it. But was that money THAT necessary for Blizzard's survival? Did that decision lead them to the brink of financial disaster? Well, we all know what the answer to that is.
My point is, as a developer or publisher, you don't ALWAYS have to be a cheap **** in order to stay afloat. Sometimes, it doesn't hurt to treat gamers as, you know, people, rather than bank accounts. Sometimes, it just works better for you to remember that the guy you are about to suck dry just paid 5% of his monthly salary to buy your fucking game. But, in all honesty, I think that those days are gone and that is just a fucking shame, and the fact that we are so easily ready to accept this really makes me sad.
You know what, do you guys remember how Warcraft 3: Frozen Throne had no Orc campaign because it didn't really fit the story? Remember how Blizzard then made a separate orc campaign (which kicked ass) and released it episodically for free bundled with the occasional balance content patch of the game? Now, wasn't that nice of them? Would they have made a lot of money if they made you pay for that campaign? Hell yes. Even I would have probably bought it. But was that money THAT necessary for Blizzard's survival? Did that decision lead them to the brink of financial disaster? Well, we all know what the answer to that is.
My point is, as a developer or publisher, you don't ALWAYS have to be a cheap **** in order to stay afloat. Sometimes, it doesn't hurt to treat gamers as, you know, people, rather than bank accounts. Sometimes, it just works better for you to remember that the guy you are about to suck dry just paid 5% of his monthly salary to buy your fucking game. But, in all honesty, I think that those days are gone and that is just a fucking shame, and the fact that we are so easily ready to accept this really makes me sad.
We all already to this. It's call the $60 annual sequel that never has any free content added to it later.
Remember when Half-life 1 came out? Then it got TFC, CTF mode, Richochet for free as patches? Along with a couple new, official maps. Or look at TF2, it's still chugging along just fine on PC.
Unreal 2k4's map packs?
We are already paying for this in mw2 (riot shields and dual wielding were added in a Counter-strike patch). It's a great experience, but it's nothing that would be a stand-alone game. It uses the same engine, adds 5 hours of single player, and some multiplayer tweaks. The new CoOp mode is the biggest improvement, and that's nothing a modder wouldn't have added in anyway. Throne of Bhaal was an expansion pack with far more content. The GTA4 DLC has about the same "new stuff."
I don't mind too much, the costs have to go up in some way. But I often let games sit for long periods of time in a backlog. Monthly fees just don't work for me.
Remember when Half-life 1 came out? Then it got TFC, CTF mode, Richochet for free as patches? Along with a couple new, official maps. Or look at TF2, it's still chugging along just fine on PC.
Unreal 2k4's map packs?
We are already paying for this in mw2 (riot shields and dual wielding were added in a Counter-strike patch). It's a great experience, but it's nothing that would be a stand-alone game. It uses the same engine, adds 5 hours of single player, and some multiplayer tweaks. The new CoOp mode is the biggest improvement, and that's nothing a modder wouldn't have added in anyway. Throne of Bhaal was an expansion pack with far more content. The GTA4 DLC has about the same "new stuff."
I don't mind too much, the costs have to go up in some way. But I often let games sit for long periods of time in a backlog. Monthly fees just don't work for me.