FPS Developers Support Call of Duty Subscriptions

[Baldry]

Will this affect zombies?! WILL IT?! WILL IT! Because if it does, so help me random deity I will hunt down the "genius" for this plan and SMITE HIM...Sorry I like zombies...

And uhm I think I may just sell my FPS's and buy better games, or atleast games that don't make me pay...Unless its a MMO I can make exceptions for that...Maybe.

 

[Dfskelleton]

Here's what I pay for:
I pay for a game that will last me quite a while and be enjoyable alone without paying extra. The only times I've payed for extra is when I used to be obsessed with Halo and bought the mythic map pack. I only spend Microsoft Points on Arcade Games now.

Here's a stupid conspiracy theory (I'm good at coming up with these):
Maybe the other developers want CoD subscriptions so less people will want to play the overrated thing. Maybe if people have to pay more they'll care less and see how generic it is. However, I did that myself with Halo, but I guess other people can't do that. Fanboys will still pay, but hopefully less people will want to play then.

 

[baseracer]

I'm guessing that this won't stay on PCs.

If you play on a Xbox 360, this is what you pay per year. 50 dollars for live, 190 dollars for subscription to whatever game you play, DLC maps that cost 15 bucks each. 265 dollars...that's fucking insane.

I regret buying Blacklight: Tango Down. They don't deserve my money.

 

[Mr. Fister]

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.

The thing is most gamers are (or should be) fine with paying for extra content as long as the content is good enough and diverse enough to justify the extra cost. The problem here is, inevitably, this will give certain publishers the excuse to continue charging gamers more money for less content because they know that there will be people who continually buy into their products no matter what they do. Everyone with any idea of how the industry operates is genuinely concerned over things like this because it could potentially be the beginning of a downward spiral that could end up having very serious repercussions on gaming.

 

[Dragunai]

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.

Let me stop you right there. Buying a game at gamestop does not mean you legally own it. It mean's you've licensed what they've unlocked on the disc for you. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. As a matter of fact, By just licensing it, they could come, at any time, and simply take the CD back from you. This has never happened, of course, but it's food for thought and I wanted you to be clear on this.

You don't "own" shit. Nothing is rightfully yours at all. In a perfect world policies like this would be abolished of course because I can't get behind it. But it's the reality of the situation, like it or not.

Locking out 80% of the content you just paid £40 to license isnt any less of a fucked up move by Bungie than if you legally owned it. Thing is if they bothered to print your above statement on the box Im pretty sure the game wouldnt have sold nearly as well considering gamers are a fairly smart social ethnicity and therefore would realise such a thing is open to exploitation at the hands of greedy capitalist companies like Bungie who think they are God in their own right thanks to the army of Halo fanboys lining up to lick the sweat off their sack.

Regardless I don't agree that you license it because this seems like an extreme law even in something as superficial as the games market. Can you show me where you learnt of this?
Im curious and love picking up on facts I can use for discussions at a later point, either to defend or attack a point.

 

[John Funk]

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.

So... when did you actually go through with that lobotomy? xD

You're basically saying that games like Battlefield and heavily moddable games, which were always free in the past should cost more... because... err profit?

Its funny of you to be saying that "DLC would be free", seeing as most of it doesn't work without paying a large amount of money for the main game previously and helps keeping gamers interested in a game/brand and said game in the news causing additional revenue...

I can't even think of any other industry that seems to feel so entitled to peoples money as the game industry is right now, maybe aside from drugs trade. Going in a few years from a business model of offering a simple product for money and growing into (having) to pay for almost everything for near to no additional gain...

That said, I'm sure there'd be enough idiots out there doing it, pushing me and other people more and more away from their "Triple A rip-off" titles to stuff like King's Bounty, Trine, Torchlight etc., which are well worth the money they cost and just the occasional "big game" every now and then.

Hey, great job on the ad hominems Keep that up and let's see what happens!

Way to completely misunderstand my point. The core experience should be free as it's always been. I think that if anyone starts trying to charge for just THAT - what gamers have been accustomed to getting for free all along - then gamers are right to turn up their noses at it.

But if a publisher starts charging a fee and delivers the additional content to match that fee... are you really saying that's a bad thing? That's utterly incomprehensible to me. If you don't feel something is worth it then don't buy it. If you feel something is worth it, then hand over your money.

And honestly, your point about the games industry feeling "entitled to peoples money" is kind of funny, given that it's also an industry with a huge percentage of leeches who feel entitled to get someone's hard work for free. Responsibility goes both ways, bucko.

I have to say, though we often disagree I can USUALLY see the points in your arguments - where you're coming from - and respect that if nothing else. This is just something that seems so strange to me. I play a lot of MMOGs, and the understanding there is that you pay for the game, and then the additional upkeep cost covers A.) further development, B.) physical upkeep (servers, maintenance, bandwidth) and C.) man power needed to keep things going.

If a developer releases a game and then starts charging a subscription fee for further development and all the bells and whistles necessary, how is that a bad thing? You can always just not pay the fee and play the regular non-premium game.

 

[squid5580]

This article makes no sense. First off we are already on a micro transaction plan. COD 4/4-2/5 all have microtransactions (and most of the 360 and PS3 library has adopted this). So the question really is will they forgo the DLC the way it is now and charge us monthly for it instead.

 

[Comieman]

Call of World of Duty, Black Cataclysm?

I see what you did thar Activision Blizzard

 

[Mikester1290]

I got BF2 on steam a little while ago, 20 pounds sterling, all patched up with all the expansion packs that were made for it slapped on top for what seems like free it's so cheap, I know it's not a new game but hey.

I'm with the TF2 guys, pay monthly FPS or PMFPS as I'm calling it (sounds like a monthly feminine problem, but for men), is not for me either.

 

[Hiphophippo]

Regardless I don't agree that you license it because this seems like an extreme law even in something as superficial as the games market. Can you show me where you learnt of this?
Im curious and love picking up on facts I can use for discussions at a later point, either to defend or attack a point.

It's hard to say where I first heard of it because I've known it for years and years. I wish it weren't the truth, but sadly it is. Ask around, make a thread about it, I'm sure there are people who know more specifics than I.

I don't really get bent out of shape over it though, provided I get to play the games I'm good.

edit

Even more dastardly is the "Shrink Wrap License" that's involved here. Google that shit.

 

[p3t3r]

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.

or that they could put subscription fees on their games

 

[dochmbi]

There's no reason to outright dismiss a subscription based Call of Duty MMOFPS. If there is enough value there to justify the price, then I would be willing to pay for it, altough I think the Battlefield series would be better suited to MMO conversion.

In the end this entire discussion is irrelevant, since it's all just free market economics. If a product is profitable, it will remain on the market, if not, it will go away.

 

[MDSnowman]

To be honest I'd prefer a balanced ever expanding multiplayer and co-op to a unbalanced and repetitive online. Cod Mw2 would be so much better with new weapons, cool game modes and monthly map add-ons. For a COD fanatic an mmog Cod would be worth it, people just don't known it yet.

There's the rub. The game you describe would be quite awesome, and I'd play it, but I don't see Activision putting the required time and effort into making a fully realized MMOFPS that actually justifies people paying a monthly subscription fee. If they resorted to advertisements during loading screens, or even micro transactions I can see the backlash being less violent, and people would expect expect less content in this case.

But looking at MW2 it becomes clear that Activision isn't looking to put effort into a game they've already got you to buy. They're interested in making map packs that force hardcore players to shell out $15 for 5 maps, 2 of which players have already seen.

 

[LeeHarveyO]

Ya know all that would be true...... if CoD was any good.

 

[Kandon Arc]

The main problem I have with all this is the way Activision are talking about it. It doesn't sound like they have any ideas on how to make a MMOFPS, just that they want to monetize MW2 multiplayer. I'm not saying that's a bad way to think about it (they are a company after all), but it's not the kind of thought process that you share with your customers. Blizzard didn't go around talking about how to make more money off Warcraft III multiplayer; the first we heard about it was when they announced WoW. Instead of leading with how they wanted more money from their fanbase, they showed them a product and tried to justify why it deserved a subscription.

Most games still use this logic today. Look at SWTOR, APB etc. Payment is always the last thing they reveal, because they want to interest you in the product first. If and when Activision announce the product they want to charge subs for, THAT will be the time to talk about a payment plan. This is horrific PR by Activision, talking about cost before benefit, it really is a failure to grasp simple PR principles. But then again Activision have never cared about PR before, so why start now?

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

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.

See, theirs a thought. Are you in marketing? You sure sound like you are.

They'll lose a large part of the market if they charge without giving anything extra. I'd pay if they gave me an experience worth paying for.