Call of Duty to get WoW-Like Subscriptions?
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Let me go on record as saying this:
If they make me pay for a subscription to play Starcraft 2 online I swear to fucking God I am going to pirate it. I don't care what happens after that. In fact I'm going get all of my Starcraft playing friends to pirate it as well if this kind of shit actually happens.
If they make me pay for a subscription to play Starcraft 2 online I swear to fucking God I am going to pirate it. I don't care what happens after that. In fact I'm going get all of my Starcraft playing friends to pirate it as well if this kind of shit actually happens.
Fuck you Activision, fuck you.
However, I am sort of suprised at myself for being suprised. We should have seen this coming.
However, I am sort of suprised at myself for being suprised. We should have seen this coming.
Better be careful...they'll ban you for heinous accusations like that, even if its 100% true.tehroc said:
Not really, its actually a pretty genius move. Sure everyone on this site with any sense is going to say, "Who would actually pay for that?" but unfortunately, this site is not representative of the internet as a whole. The sad truth is most gamers are flaming imbeciles and will gladly pay Activision to rape them without lubrication. Hell, I mean look at MW2. So many idiots are willing to pay out the ass to play that mediocre game. I remember seeing a screenshot of the Steam group calling for a boycott on it, and 90% of the members of that group were actually playing the game when the screenshot was taken. You should never underestimate how many gamers will sell their own mothers in order to keep doing their hobby.Borntolose said:
Yes but Activision have been generating a lot of hate lately and I hardly think that this will make matters better.matrix3509 said:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh yes, the consumers are positively clamoring to pay subscription fees!
What the suit meant is that they've realized they can get away with charging subscription fees, and really, if people are going to put up with that nonsense, why the hell wouldn't they start charging? [small]Apart from destroying any illusion that you possess even a modicum of common decency that is.[/small]
Now me, I have very few hard and fast rules, but the first and foremost is thus: Does this game have a monthly fee? If yes, than I will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever play it. No exceptions. Charging a monthly fee (or any form of recurring fee) so we can continue playing a game we already paid for is where I draw the bloody line, and your game could be the greatest thing ever but it won't matter if you decided to charge a subscription fee - I will never even contemplate playing it, because games are not a bloody service.
And lest anyone raise the tired old "we need it for the upkeep on the server farm oh noes!" chestnut, the existence and commercial success of 'free to play' MMOs obviates many of the "but they need the money for the upkeep!" arguments quite neatly - clearly it is possible to build a viable MMO that doesn't rely on subscription fees, ergo MMOs charge subscription fees because you will pay them. But at least those have that flimsy justification for subscription fees, which is more than you can say for what Activision is proposing - MMO style fees for games that are not bloody MMOs makes absolutely no sense from any perspective other than the "I just thought of a great way to increase revenue!" one.
The day all games move to the pay-to-play model is the day I stop bloody buying video games, so if all Activision titles move to this model then it looks like I won't be buying any of those from now on. It's only fitting really, considering Activision has practically bent over backwards to become the incarnation of everything I revile and think is wrong with gaming (who could have possibly thought any gaming company could out evil EA? Certainly not me!) - I can't say I didn't see this point coming.
Activision has made me start to think about EA in a fond light - if that's not a sign of the apocalypse, I don't know what is.
What the suit meant is that they've realized they can get away with charging subscription fees, and really, if people are going to put up with that nonsense, why the hell wouldn't they start charging? [small]Apart from destroying any illusion that you possess even a modicum of common decency that is.[/small]
Now me, I have very few hard and fast rules, but the first and foremost is thus: Does this game have a monthly fee? If yes, than I will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever play it. No exceptions. Charging a monthly fee (or any form of recurring fee) so we can continue playing a game we already paid for is where I draw the bloody line, and your game could be the greatest thing ever but it won't matter if you decided to charge a subscription fee - I will never even contemplate playing it, because games are not a bloody service.
And lest anyone raise the tired old "we need it for the upkeep on the server farm oh noes!" chestnut, the existence and commercial success of 'free to play' MMOs obviates many of the "but they need the money for the upkeep!" arguments quite neatly - clearly it is possible to build a viable MMO that doesn't rely on subscription fees, ergo MMOs charge subscription fees because you will pay them. But at least those have that flimsy justification for subscription fees, which is more than you can say for what Activision is proposing - MMO style fees for games that are not bloody MMOs makes absolutely no sense from any perspective other than the "I just thought of a great way to increase revenue!" one.
The day all games move to the pay-to-play model is the day I stop bloody buying video games, so if all Activision titles move to this model then it looks like I won't be buying any of those from now on. It's only fitting really, considering Activision has practically bent over backwards to become the incarnation of everything I revile and think is wrong with gaming (who could have possibly thought any gaming company could out evil EA? Certainly not me!) - I can't say I didn't see this point coming.
Activision has made me start to think about EA in a fond light - if that's not a sign of the apocalypse, I don't know what is.
If this is an optional cost for extra goodies and some great stuff that's updated about weekly or so, go for it. I've got no problem if you're putting out something new that I'm paying for in SMALL (if you charge $15 you can stop think of this idea right now) cost for it. If you're going to start charging for online, well, I'm going to tell you that I've stopped playing every subscription based game I've ever done. Like several other people, I like single player and multiplayer is just an added bonus for me. Don't make the mistake here that most FPSs are doing (ie focusing completely on multiplayer and putting in a single player reluctantly like it's mandatory or something) only a step up.
I think quite the opposite would happen. Anyone who is 18+ would have to pay for it themselves (obviously an estimate there would be younger who would have to as well), and would just stop playing it and stick to games like TF2, CS:S, etc...Onyx Oblivion said:
You'd end up with a bunch of 14 year olds clogging up the servers...even though that's probably already the case.
Anyway - I think it's a horrible idea. Unless they do something like with planetside, which they wouldn't, it would suck, 9v9 maps where every once in a while a sparkly gun drops that's overpowered. I can see huge customer demand, especially from their hardcore market for that (unless they measure hardcore-ness by the amount of hype you can level at any one game).
Please excuse my french but, FUCKTHIS!
I don't want to pay monthly after already spending $60 on a game that comes with about 7 multiplayer maps. It's a freaking money grab by Activision and whom ever else. FPS will never be an MMO, ever. These companies need to stop thinking that it will be.
And companies wonder why people hack their games, crack their code, and rip their content. Could it be because normal intelligent gamers are sick of capitalistic money hounding jerk offs? Why yes, I think it is.
I'm so freaking angry right now I can hardly type.
EDIT:
And furthermore, I payed the cash and I play the game legitimately and I'm stuck in servers with hacking aimbotting children. They're everywhere and there isn't a descent ban list to add them to or even an anti-cheat system worth a damn right now.
And I better fucking not have to pay extra money just to have a fair game online, so help me God.
Not even a "Vote Kick" option was added to atleast have a concensus of the players to kick someone who is obviously hacking.
Even hacking websites are popping up with little to no resistance from Infinity Ward to either shut them down or figure out a way to ban/kick them from multiplayer games.
I'm not even angry about he no-dedi server thing anymore, the IWnet thing works, but fuck them if we clients have to pay to use that service.
I don't want to pay monthly after already spending $60 on a game that comes with about 7 multiplayer maps. It's a freaking money grab by Activision and whom ever else. FPS will never be an MMO, ever. These companies need to stop thinking that it will be.
And companies wonder why people hack their games, crack their code, and rip their content. Could it be because normal intelligent gamers are sick of capitalistic money hounding jerk offs? Why yes, I think it is.
I'm so freaking angry right now I can hardly type.
EDIT:
And furthermore, I payed the cash and I play the game legitimately and I'm stuck in servers with hacking aimbotting children. They're everywhere and there isn't a descent ban list to add them to or even an anti-cheat system worth a damn right now.
And I better fucking not have to pay extra money just to have a fair game online, so help me God.
Not even a "Vote Kick" option was added to atleast have a concensus of the players to kick someone who is obviously hacking.
Even hacking websites are popping up with little to no resistance from Infinity Ward to either shut them down or figure out a way to ban/kick them from multiplayer games.
I'm not even angry about he no-dedi server thing anymore, the IWnet thing works, but fuck them if we clients have to pay to use that service.
As if the fans didn't have enough to get angry over. Activision I have lost all remaining faith I had in you.
Generally speaking I see things from their perspective. Part of their perspective is also that gamers are a captive audience of addicts, and that while we're going to be resistant to paying more for what we already have, they figure they can do it anyway and we'll pay.
Right now I have no objection to paying for a subscription to a game with a ton of content, especially if the game is constantly expanding even outside of expansion packs. Blizzard for example has kept things interesting with their holiday events (they add more and more of them, and update the old ones), added in substantial content additions like new raid dungeons and such, and related things. In general the game tends to run very smoothly and despite all criticisms the community is solid.
I have no interest in shooters, but say if someone wanted to charge me a subscription fee to play fighting games (which I do play online occasionally) I'd think they were nuts. I would sooner give up playing such games online than pay a fee to the company. If I was more into shooters I'm sure I'd feel the same way.
When it comes to DLC I have no objection to paying for expansion packs and such, and perhaps even to downloading them online for an online game. However I think things like Blizzard's recent "$10 Static Pets" are absolutly insane.
Oh, I'll freely admit part of it is being relatively poor. I game so much because I'm retired on disabillity (as I've mentioned in other messages). $15 for an online game like WoW is a good value, but if I start having to pay two or three times that price for DLC, services, and other things I'm of course going to wind up having to give up gaming. Right now the DLC I've seen from MMORPGs has been minor (static pets and such) but just the way the wind is blowing I am rapidly becoming concerned it will become more than that.
I'll also freely admit that part of gaming for me is escapism (a BIG part), I appreciate a level playing field more than many people might. I don't much care for the idea of people being able to pay money for what will turn into advantages in the game... and honestly when I think about FPS and more "action oriented" games I can't think of many things you can add that wouldn't have a gamplay effect.
I think back to the video I saw in another article about MW2 being hacked right off the bat. Well just imagine them selling weapons that achieve the same effects as many of those hacks for real money, and then even if the servers are still free, having to pay every month to get the newest "uber hack" or "cheese weapon" just to remain competitive.
Right now I have no objection to paying for a subscription to a game with a ton of content, especially if the game is constantly expanding even outside of expansion packs. Blizzard for example has kept things interesting with their holiday events (they add more and more of them, and update the old ones), added in substantial content additions like new raid dungeons and such, and related things. In general the game tends to run very smoothly and despite all criticisms the community is solid.
I have no interest in shooters, but say if someone wanted to charge me a subscription fee to play fighting games (which I do play online occasionally) I'd think they were nuts. I would sooner give up playing such games online than pay a fee to the company. If I was more into shooters I'm sure I'd feel the same way.
When it comes to DLC I have no objection to paying for expansion packs and such, and perhaps even to downloading them online for an online game. However I think things like Blizzard's recent "$10 Static Pets" are absolutly insane.
Oh, I'll freely admit part of it is being relatively poor. I game so much because I'm retired on disabillity (as I've mentioned in other messages). $15 for an online game like WoW is a good value, but if I start having to pay two or three times that price for DLC, services, and other things I'm of course going to wind up having to give up gaming. Right now the DLC I've seen from MMORPGs has been minor (static pets and such) but just the way the wind is blowing I am rapidly becoming concerned it will become more than that.
I'll also freely admit that part of gaming for me is escapism (a BIG part), I appreciate a level playing field more than many people might. I don't much care for the idea of people being able to pay money for what will turn into advantages in the game... and honestly when I think about FPS and more "action oriented" games I can't think of many things you can add that wouldn't have a gamplay effect.
I think back to the video I saw in another article about MW2 being hacked right off the bat. Well just imagine them selling weapons that achieve the same effects as many of those hacks for real money, and then even if the servers are still free, having to pay every month to get the newest "uber hack" or "cheese weapon" just to remain competitive.
They are going to have many measures in place i believe to stop you pirating the game, like, you have to add a CD key to use Bnet and it has to be unregistered etcmatrix3509 said:
but i guess my hacking knowledge is limited, and i am sure someone will find a way around it
but ppl should chill out...blizzard are not going to make you pay for starcraft online...they are only gonna charge for extra maps, extra skins, tornament support...whatever, in which case...just dont buy it
i am 99.9% certain 'core' bnet features, wholly covers sc2 online play...wtf would it mean if it wasnt considered core? battlenet is free, but you only get to look at the login screen
remember, numerous bnet panels and articles state: Core Bnet is going to be 100% free to anyone who has a legit copy of the game...how core is core? well I think it will cover above and beyond what everyone expects
wow, i just realised i want to defend blizzard till death....oh no im a fanboy!Carnagath said:
in all seriousness, it could happen, because at the end of the day the final word stands with the shareholders and they are the ones that get all the mooh-laah so i wouldnt be suprised if there is some kind of rip off going to take place...nothing is free
I just dont think that kind of behaviour is in blizz' blood, its not their ethos. Can you blame them for charging for something that might have taken them like, weeks to implement, test, etc, but only 1% of the people who buy the game are going to use... i know alot of sc players and none of em have tournaments, but i guess thats a bit of a generalization
I have no doubt that they will monetize alot of things, but at the same time, I think these will be of 'value'...ppl need to realise there is a massive difference between something being 'expensive' and 'valuable', and of course it is subjective, varies between everyone, so nobody should criticize
You can log into the Battle.net shopping channel... thats probably all you'll get for free... I hate this, Modern Warfare 2 was already screwed over by Acti-zard Ward, and now they are going to make it even worse. I doubt Starcraft 2 will be worth buying now - the singleplayer mode will probably be 2 hours, with additional hours unlocked by a LOW, LOW, FEE! BUY TODAY TO AVOID MISSING OUT! - and the like.Carnagath said: