FPS Developers Support Call of Duty Subscriptions


Elite Member
Jul 31, 2008
So lets say a fee of 4.99 (or 50 a year)a month, I doubt it would be much higher. And you get access to the new maps for free, (i'd assume, a few per month), more playlist or tournaments, a few perks, access to beta's, perhaps dedicated servers. To me a strictly multiplayer gamer it would be a deal to keep a fav (cod) game fresh year round.

Also read ppl traditional play is gonna be free still....


New member
Aug 9, 2010
The Amazing Tea Alligator said:
I hate how this is happening. I blame it on one thing - MMOs.

MMOs - get out. Just leave. Nobody wants you.
I think the millions upon millions of people playing them may disagree.

Dragunai said:
Bleh, this is just the next phase in the games industries attempts to drain money out of us. Bungie has already started this trend by locking out 80% of the online multiplayer content by forcing you to buy the DLC before it will let you play the content you rightfully own and now COD is doing the same thing but more blatantly.
Therumancer said:
See, the bottom line is that for all our complaining us gamers line up like sheep to buy whatver the gaming industry churns out, and support any scam that they throw out with our money even if we bleet about it. You might hate DLC, or paying $15 for a map pack, but you STILL pay for it. People complain about how they hate Bobby Kotick and his policies, but when "Starcraft 2" comes out, people line up to pay $10 above the going rate for a game they know is 1/3rd of the story.
All that needs to be said , really.


New member
Apr 25, 2009
And yet I still wouldn't want to play it, this is the worst idea ever, hell Valve supports TF2 and releases new stuff for it still and that doesn't cost you anything, so why the hell should I pay these asshats?


Nightingale Assassin
May 20, 2009
Only one thing for shit like this.

Start a fucking rebellion.

No way am I paying for CoD online, if they start that - I'm not even going to buy the game.


The Noble
Jan 6, 2010
Seriously we should be banding together for something more profound, at the end of the day subscription or not, the money goes back to the game developer. There are more concerning issues like net neutrality. Are you willing to pay higher fees to your ISP to keep them from slowing down your connection to a game servers? I think this is more of a concern.


New member
Nov 28, 2009
Thedayrecker said:
I guess I'm just going to have to keep ignoring FPS's
Psst... I got whacha need...

*looks left*

*looks right*

*opens jacket*

It updates itself [http://store.steampowered.com/app/440/], new players, and more fun than a new military shooter. That'll be $20 bucks.


How is the fanbase going to respond? If there was an MMOFPS version of Call of Duty with World of Warcraft-quality RPG elements under the hood, I'd bet it would be the biggest game in history. I'd play it. I'd play the fuck out it."
Oh some will love it. But how many people would play a broken game of CoD, where everyone has to grind to get some new attachment for their gun? I tell ya, it's sad...


New member
Aug 13, 2009
Space Jawa said:
Alternatively, some of them secretly hope that by charging subscription fees, Activision will drive players away from Call of Duty to other FPSs, preferably theirs.
Exactly what I was thinking.

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
Honestly? I really don't see the problem - provided that they don't just start charging for what's already there. If you can play online for free, and they just add a "premium" subscription on top for extra skins/automatic and constantly updated DLC, is that really a problem? Are you all really so cheap as to think that a team of developers spending their time creating new content should give it all away for free? No, because they need to pay those salaries so the people who make the stuff can actually feed their families.

The whole "DLC should be free!!!!1" argument has always sounded so juvenile and immature to me. If a team of twenty people works for a month to create something new, in what world should they NOT get paid for their efforts? Similarly, if Treyarch starts working after the launch of Black Ops to release a steady stream of new content for their game, should they not get paid for it? Is their time literally worth nothing?

And I have to say, if you think Valve constantly updates TF2 out of the pure goodness of Gabe Newell's heart, I have a few bridges to sell you out in San Francisco. That's as much a business decision as anything Activision does. It keeps you on Steam, it keeps you seeing their ads and buying new games on Steam... and Valve gets a cut of every game you buy. It's a loss-leader.


New member
Sep 14, 2008
Hah, MMO shooters already happened. And they were mediocre. Planetside, Global Agenda, Tabula Rasa, APB. I don't see people ever remembering those games, less playing them.

John Funk said:
The whole "DLC should be free!!!!1" argument has always sounded so juvenile and immature to me. If a team of twenty people works for a month to create something new, in what world should they NOT get paid for their efforts? Similarly, if Treyarch starts working after the launch of Black Ops to release a steady stream of new content for their game, should they not get paid for it? Is their time literally worth nothing?
Are you really so gullible? You really think they always make DLC from scratch? Because I'm pretty sure that half the time, they simply cut out some things they didn't finish before the deadline, then announce "DAY ONE DLC!!". Seriously, they work for a game 2-3 years, and suddenly they make content that happened to be created a week or two too late?

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
If someone want's to collect money after the initial purchase, they have to present me with significant improvements and additions over the life of the game. It should be noted that no FPS to date has managed to meet a standard where I'd consider paying for the privledge of paying after I purchased the game.

As an aside, I would pay a subscription fee by itself in order to access a multiplayer shooter as I rarely spend more than a few months with any particular game. For example, I'd have willingly sacrificed the entire single player portion of Bad Company 2 (which I have never even started) for a reasonable monthly fee (less than 15 USD).

Basically, my position is simple enough: either give me the game indefinitely for a low price, or base the entire experience off the fee. If anyone wants a better compromise than that, I expect more service from them than the occasional map pack and maintaining a host list.


New member
May 10, 2008
Okay. RPG: A role-playing-game. Usually consists of taking the role of a character. Either live as the character or be the character. Leveling up to involve the feeling of improving oneself in an alien environment. Loot. Item gained to further improve the experience of the world, in the form of equipment, use-able items or weapons. MMORPG usually consists of world that others are experiencing at the same time. Same as an RPG but with more added in to rationalize spending hours, days, or years on the games content.

FPS: First Person Shooter. Usually consists of killing any viable opponent in front of your weapon. No lvling up. Live as the character the only option. No loot. Very little to non items gained, usually just in the form of weapons. MMOFPS: ....? I do not know. Kill other players?

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
I don't see why those people who make FPS are so keen on this catching on with CoD. If people are spending more money on CoD, every month, then that is less money and time they have left to spend on their B tier titles.


New member
Apr 18, 2009
If I have to pay subscription I also expect free DLC, new stuff and updates/patches frequently.

You cant charge for the service AND DLC, thats just money-grubbing.

I dont see how FPS's can keep charging money and never update/fix stuff or give free content.


New member
Mar 6, 2009
I did some math on this. In order for them keep the same amount of income they'd have to keep quite a bit of their player base for this to not shot themselves in the foot. They'd have to keep 66.67% if they charged 5$/mo, 50% at 10$/mo and 40% at 15$/mo in order to have the same income that they would have made with selling 2 cod titles in a 2 year period (calculations include a 60$ game to start off the mmo part). they'd have to keep those numbers and release a 60$ expansion every 2 years just to keep up with what they're doing now. Considering how overpriced the dlc is and how short the champeign is I honestly don't see them keeping that many people hooked in the longrun with how much ppl would be paying.