Kotick Wishes Xbox Live Was More Open

[Giest4life]

What's next?

Are porn sites going to want more control from internet service providers because 60% of internet traffic is used for porn?

That statistic is made up, but you get the idea.

Made up, maybe, but certainly not far from the "truth."

 

[TPiddy]

Obviously. It's much higher.
I can sort of see why Kotick is unhappy, it seems unfair for all the revenue to go to Microsoft when it's Kotick's games they're playing. But I think he overestimates how many people would be willing to pay for yet another subscription. At least I hope he does. I do not want to see this happen. Does he plan to kill PC multiplayer too?

What Kotick is implying is that people are buying LIVE subscriptions SOLELY to play CoD, which is untrue. CoD may be a major reason why someone would want to, but a quick look at some user profiles will tell you that many who play CoD also play other games online like Gears, Left 4 Dead, Halo and the like. Should Bungie or Epic complain about it and demand their cuts from the subscription fee as well? How far do you take this argument?

How is it determined? Total number of games in their gamer profile? Or do we do an hourly comparison? Something like this is almost immeasurable because you're adding a human element to it. Kotick seems to think that since a gamer primarily plays CoD online that MUST be the reason that gamer bought a subscription, but how the hell does he know? Did he conduct a survey? Is he allowed access to a gamer's full analytics profile?

He's just being a greedy fuck and like everyone else on here has said, he should shut the hell up.

 

[Ickorus]

"Let's provide value by charging our customers subscription fees!"

Im sure that made sense in his head.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

I disagree with what he said about Xbox Live subscribers paying ONLY to pay for Call of Duty. That doesn't make much sense because the average person who owns and plays Call of Duty happens to have a copy of Halo, or any other online based game you'd care to mention. You can't make statistics out of a fact that's bullshit to begin with.

 

[Lionsfan]

What a prick. Isn't he happy making millions off a broken multiplayer with shitty single-player and the guarantee that the sequel will be even bigger? Come on dude, isn't there any human left in you?

 

[Treblaine]

Next CoD for the PC make it subscription based.

problem solved.


and before anyone whines about it, you would be getting your dedicated servers, along with paying to play on them.

Evidently you're not a PC gamer.

I play game on the PC along with consoles if that's what you mean. Unless to be considered a PC gamer you have to have that splint of elitism that always pops up.


THE POINT: Kotick wants to make more money with the CoD series, but is unable to charge extra fees to the 360. A logical choice from Kotick would be making the PC version of the next CoD have dedicated servers that you would have to pay to play on.

do I need to spell it out in my original post of what I meant? or are people that stupid?

you were a bit trite, it wasn't clear what you actually meant at all.

Funny as the developers of COD: Black Ops have already confirmed "The PC version WILL have dedicated servers" but what that actually means remains to be seen.

If Kotick IS FUCKING STUPID ENOUGH to charge $50 or $60 for a year's access - even if it includes dedicated-servers for all other Activision games on PC - then he is a moron and an EVEN WORSE businessman than he has previously indicated.

Why? Because Microsoft already tried that back in 2007 to a crashing failure, Microsoft failed to realise that PC was a different market with different competition where every other developer for PC was not charging for dedicated servers. Microsoft got away with it on consoles as console gamers were NEW to online multiplayer... they could be convinced that the service was worth paying for.

COD is not the same as WoW, it simply isn't. COD and other FPS game have always had free multiplayer, if they start charging now and their competition does not... well this is basic business people, Activision is going to be worse off. Call of Duty is not an unmissable franchise (especially not since Kotick fucked IW over), people can and will skip it if the price is extortionate.

It only costs about $30 to rent a 24+ player server for a month, that is enough to be sustained by charity or enthusiasts (ah... to be the admin) or just lump it in with development costs of the game. Considering the number of different people who use a server at different times over a month the cost per user is almost insignificant ... about 10 cents per-user per-month (assuming the server is in steady use).

Everyone has to realise when people like Bobby Kotick moan about the "cost" of Dedicated Servers... what they are REALLY complaining about is "why can't I make money from this?", they are just being envious of these independent enthusiasts running their own servers.

People like Kotick sees a community water well that everyone is drinking from - people chipping together or acting philanthropically to keep it maintained - now they want to wall it off, control it, and charge people to access it. Not charge what it cost him to maintain it... but charge what it is WORTH to people! Water is worth a lot when you are denied it!

(not ALL businessmen are as bad as Kotick, Sony and Wii sees sense and does not charge for online nor even the many PS3 games that use Dedicated Servers... even since Playstation Plus was introduced)

 

[Jumplion]

To an extent, he's right. This is one of the reasons why VALVe has yet to release any updates for TF2 for the 360.

Then again [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101503-Kotick-Wants-Call-of-Duty-Subscriptions-Tomorrow], could just be Kotick being a greedy bastard.

I wonder which is most true...

[sup]that was mostly sarcasm, just saying, the second option obviously[/sup]

 

[Truly-A-Lie]

Will someone put Satan back downstairs in his hole, I'm growing tired of hearing his words. Money, money, more money... You've got enough!

 

[Samuel Adams]

Wow, I can't believe how out-of-hand he is getting. He needs to just be fired.

Also I remember a quote from him from a different article here, "Audiences are clamoring for a subscription fee." Who in their right mind would WANT to pay for Call of Duty? Where are you getting these facts?

 

[antipunt]

"Need more monayyyyy!"

Essentially

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

So basically he's saying he wishes he could get the money made by xbox live..

 

[z0nbie]

It could work if they charge like 20$ for the game disc itself and then 5$ a month to play ... at the end of the year it would be the same price if you just bought the game outright. This doesn't include the DLC and whatnot they'll make cash off of too. You can't charge $80 for a game then expect people to pay to play it as well though

 

[Cousin_IT]

They might consider a deal. On the other hand, Kotick has no leverage at all with which to challange the way Microsoft currently do things with XBL. So I see no reason for them to suddenly try to accomodate Activisions attempts to get in on online income that might impact their on their own revanue.

 

[KiruTheMant]

What's next?

Are porn sites going to want more control from internet service providers because 60% of internet traffic is used for porn?

That statistic is made up, but you get the idea.

88%

 

[Tdc2182]

If he puts a subscription fee on the next CoD, I am not buying it, plain and simple. I have enough grief from MW2 and have to stop after a while, what makes him think I want to buy something that constantly pisses me off. The majority of gamers on the Xbox will give away the game if they have to give into a subscription fee, and I know all my friends won't buy it.

 

[BRMXJzjsoawk321]

what a greedy bastard! i wish black ops would actualy lose money... his head would probably explode!

And blame lost sales on piracy?