FPS Developers Support Call of Duty Subscriptions
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Well, honestly, it doesn't bother me, as I don't play FPS's very often, and MW even less, so....
/shrugs
On the upside, it could get all the 'l337 5n1p3r5' to go there and let the rest of us have some good old fashioned, Goldeneye-style arcade-y fun again. Heck, I might start playing FPS's once more, without having to worry about glitchers or modders or other people that generally make the experience not fun. ^_^
/shrugs
On the upside, it could get all the 'l337 5n1p3r5' to go there and let the rest of us have some good old fashioned, Goldeneye-style arcade-y fun again. Heck, I might start playing FPS's once more, without having to worry about glitchers or modders or other people that generally make the experience not fun. ^_^
Subscription to play an FPS?
Not worth it as much as it is to pay for WoW.
However, I shall stick to Team Fortress 2. Incredibly cheap, fun, AND free updates? Yes please.
Not worth it as much as it is to pay for WoW.
However, I shall stick to Team Fortress 2. Incredibly cheap, fun, AND free updates? Yes please.
Team Fortress 2? You mean that MMOFPS? The one where you have to grind to get all the new guns? Still, nice try, keep on playingThe Amazing Tea Alligator said:
OT - I see utterly nothing wrong with the model they're suggesting. In fact, I'd be interested to see if Dust 413 (or whatever the numbers are) does something like this, especially if they're still going to put it directly in the EVE Online universe.
In fact, an MMOFPS would work best if it was based around co-op gameplay. Call of Duty Online would be pretty cool if you could make a Spetznatz, SAS, Rangers or whatever soldier with specific skills, and then team up as a "coalition special forces team" to take down ultranationalists/psychopathic corporations/PMCs/whatever. Bonus points for whoever ends up making this if they let players specialise in things like demolitions and electronics as well as different types of guns.
Well A smattering of developers across the first-person shooter spectrum can kiss my adorable bubbly ass.
With all these subscription based games popping up and microtransactions being done to milk every penny out of paying customers, people are going to choose NOT to play games because of having to spread their time across so many subsriptions.
They can pretend that subscriptions are used only to protect against piracy all they want, but thats bull, it gives them complete control over a game and it's replayability, and takes it all away from the gamer:
-no game when net is out
-no ability to play game in the future after they shut down the servers to force you into buying the sequel
-the end of game libraries
With all these subscription based games popping up and microtransactions being done to milk every penny out of paying customers, people are going to choose NOT to play games because of having to spread their time across so many subsriptions.
They can pretend that subscriptions are used only to protect against piracy all they want, but thats bull, it gives them complete control over a game and it's replayability, and takes it all away from the gamer:
-no game when net is out
-no ability to play game in the future after they shut down the servers to force you into buying the sequel
-the end of game libraries
Quick comment, it is physically impossible to grind in Team Fortress. You only get 3 unlockables from achievements, and that's it. Even then it would be nearly impossible to grind out achievements, most of them you'll jut stumble upon.Chipperz said:Team Fortress 2? You mean that MMOFPS? The one where you have to grind to get all the new guns? Still, nice try, keep on playingThe Amazing Tea Alligator said:
OT - I see utterly nothing wrong with the model they're suggesting. In fact, I'd be interested to see if Dust 413 (or whatever the numbers are) does something like this, especially if they're still going to put it directly in the EVE Online universe.
In fact, an MMOFPS would work best if it was based around co-op gameplay. Call of Duty Online would be pretty cool if you could make a Spetznatz, SAS, Rangers or whatever soldier with specific skills, and then team up as a "coalition special forces team" to take down ultranationalists/psychopathic corporations/PMCs/whatever. Bonus points for whoever ends up making this if they let players specialise in things like demolitions and electronics as well as different types of guns.
If anyone has played Combat Arms then you know that a MMOFPS CAN work. Yeah it kind of sucks but its not bad at all. It has missions that you can play with a group of people. Rather than having perks be unlocked by level I would say that things like Scavenger would be automatic, but things like marathon man and the like should be done through TRAINING. Yeah its where an RPG element would come in. Each level you have a certain amount of points to put into training where if you upgrade your agility and speed it would unlock perks like Marathon Man. The Cold Blooded perk I would put on things like a Black ops or sniper class that automatically has it which makes them harder to spot.
and not a single fuck was given. I'm amused that they didn't realize they would lose a huge chunk of their player base if FPS had a subscription. People play them so much, and for so long, because its fun, competitive, and you only have to PAY FOR IT ONCE.
Here waiting for World War III to shake things up. Dosen't matter if Activision crash and burn after losing every single customer or become the dystopian gaming monopoly - because when real bullets start flying, all the money in the world will become fairly meaningless. Not like Bobby Kotick has his own private army yet, huh? Huh?!
An actual MMOFPS would be pretty nifty though.
An actual MMOFPS would be pretty nifty though.
It's funny, I remember when I was younger and games cost $50 and that was all for a full game experience. You didn't have to download anything to unlock the rest of the game, and you certainly did not have to pay more to unlock extra content. Now we have the privilege of paying $10 more per game and we actually get less product than ever. But that's not enough, we need to turn a product you once bought and owned into an empty shell that is really just another service.
Things like this are only hurting the game industry. How can "casual" gamers ever join to play online if all of a sudden it means investing more money into another monthly fee? Sure, the rapid fanboy may be able to somehow twist justification towards paying inordinate sums per month, but everyone else is going to be thinking along the lines of "Gee, about those important bills like... food." It all adds up in the end, and the more pricey gaming becomes, the less inclined people will be to jump on board to even try playing.
Things like this are only hurting the game industry. How can "casual" gamers ever join to play online if all of a sudden it means investing more money into another monthly fee? Sure, the rapid fanboy may be able to somehow twist justification towards paying inordinate sums per month, but everyone else is going to be thinking along the lines of "Gee, about those important bills like... food." It all adds up in the end, and the more pricey gaming becomes, the less inclined people will be to jump on board to even try playing.
$600 console is directly paid to the console manufacturer(in which most times the manufacturer is loosing money on because they make their money from licensing fees of games.)Pendragon9 said:
Second, the $60-$100 is going to pay off the initial development, licensing fees, server infrastructure for multiplayer, support, and more. Most of the rest of the money goes into seed money for future game development.
It just stupid business to pump that money into developing and updating more free multiplayer, that is basically throwing away money at a game people already paid for. When they use it to invest develop a new game they could sell.
Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!
Seriously though, if COD actually does start charging a subscription fee just for multiplayer, they'd have to justify it in a way that fps' aren't really designed for. If the name of the game is "shoot the chaps on the other side" or a varient then the only thing that can really be added are new maps, guns, and character skins. And unless a nuclear bomb is promised, I just don't see the incentive.
Seriously though, if COD actually does start charging a subscription fee just for multiplayer, they'd have to justify it in a way that fps' aren't really designed for. If the name of the game is "shoot the chaps on the other side" or a varient then the only thing that can really be added are new maps, guns, and character skins. And unless a nuclear bomb is promised, I just don't see the incentive.
I understand that, game length varies too much even between console generations. I guess I was just looking at how a game like Call of Duty has a short single player that leaves you pretty much stuck with multiplayer alone to fill in the rest of its 'worth,' while other games can find a decent balance. It's nice when the multiplayer does not feel like the only justification for a game's purchase, but a sweet extra on top of a compelling single player, especially when the price point is exactly the same.Eukaryote said:
Call me a cheapstake, but I will never pay for online multiplayer, no matter how good or incredibly exciting or super manly it may make me
