Question of the Day, August 13, 2010

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Question of the Day, August 13, 2010



Activision was briefly planning on implementing paid content for its Call of Duty franchise. If you play shooters, what extras would you be willing to pay for?

Permalink
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
3,247
0
0
I can't afford to pay for that sort of content. Not when Valve is giving away the same sort of thing, only better, and more often, for free.
 

Onyx Oblivion

Borderlands Addict. Again.
Sep 9, 2008
17,032
0
0
DLC, maybe. If that's what you mean by "virtual goods". I'll pay for new maps on occasion. VERY RARE OCCASIONS.

But all the rest of the options should come standard.
 

Crayzor

New member
Aug 16, 2009
1,671
0
0
I wouldn't want to pay for any of them. Valve updates TF2 all the time for free, so I don't think any of those would be worth the subscription fee. If it does happen, I'll just stop playing shooters.
 

crotalidian

and Now My Watch Begins
Sep 8, 2009
676
0
0
I dont play shooters online. but even if I did I wouldnt be playing anyhting that involved activision!
 

Berserker119

New member
Dec 31, 2009
1,404
0
0
I really wouldn't pay for any of these. I Already spend too much on Rockband, I can't afford to buy anything else.
 

Syphous

New member
Apr 6, 2009
833
0
0
Shooters are not exciting enough for me to waste more than the initial price on. I never buy their DLC, nor would I buy in on micro-transactions. Unless we're talking about a shooter like Fallout 3 or Borderlands or something... that changes my tune.
 

Superior Mind

New member
Feb 9, 2009
1,537
0
0
Nah, not a chance. Didn't even buy the BF2 Booster Packs which was the first example of this kind of thing that I remember.

MW2 looked like an experiment into how much cash a company can grab while delivering as little content as possible; one of the many reasons I didn't bother with the game. I know Bobby wants to expand this idea by turning a popular franchise like Call of Duty into a cash cow like WoW instead of just bringing out a new CoD game every year like he usually does but I don't know if people will go for it - unless the content was actually decent and not just cheap half-arsed rubbish - but I'm sure cheap half-arsed rubbish is exactly what Bobby would insist on delivering.

I don't know. Can anyone tell me how well that MW2 map pack sold or if it was any good? It is true that there are many gamer out there who are only too willing to part with their money.
 

Kermi

Elite Member
Nov 7, 2007
2,538
0
41
This poll is a complete strawman. We had no idea what Kotick had in mind when he was talking about a subscription-basedCall of Duty.

You might as well base the same poll around Blizzard games then ask why anyone would play World of Warcraft.
 

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,831
0
0
I'll pay for DLC, because that's standard anyway, though I'll be mightily pissed off if developers carry on making unfinished games and releasing the 'extra' stuff that should have been present from the start as DLC. If you make a game then anything you make should be in the finished product, surely DLC should refer to stuff developed after shipping, or during the end phases (playtesting and debugging), rather than stuff deliberately removed so it can be sold later?

Anyway, I'll gladly pay for (good) DLC. Aside from that, why should I be forced to pay extra for parts of a game that should have been present from the start?
 

lewism247

New member
Aug 1, 2009
1,137
0
0
I wouldn't pay for any of it, we've already bought the game (which tend to be a bit more expensive than others), we should need to pay to use features in it.
 

Proteus214

Game Developer
Jul 31, 2009
2,270
0
0
Other games do these individual things for free. Why start out promising everything if the game isn't even that popular? Why not gauge what the community wants and give it to them for free?
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
Onyx Oblivion said:
DLC, maybe. If that's what you mean by "virtual goods". I'll pay for new maps on occasion.

But all the rest of the options should come standard.
That's pretty much my opinion too. I'd prefer it if developers either went the Rainbow Six route (thanks for buying our game, have some free DLC) or the L4D2 route (buy our DLC pack as a one off and get continual DLC from then on) but that's probably too much to ask for from the entire industry. So, yeah, map packs for me too.
 

Deadlock Radium

New member
Mar 29, 2009
2,276
0
0
Shamus Young said:
I can't afford to pay for that sort of content. Not when Valve is giving away the same sort of thing, only better, and more often, for free.
Exactly. I won't buy things because I can't afford buying things, and also, as Shamus says, because Valve is awesome and gives away updates and goods for free.

Also, I don't like Activision and won't support their attempts to dominate the world.
 

uppitycracker

New member
Oct 9, 2008
864
0
0
I wouldn't pay for a single one of these, simply because it's been the standard to be community-driven (in terms of competitive play), or because paying for virtual items in a competitive scene is fucking retarded (virtual goods).

As for the ladders and such, I don't want those in my shooters. Not at all. Keep it to the comp scene. Anybody who has spent some serious time playing BC2 on the PC can attest to the fact that stats have ruined the team play aspect of the game. The majority if people are so concerned with their KD:R, that they NEVER take chances, leaving any Rush maps a jumbled, confusing and frustrating mess. Objectives? nah, I'll just sit in this bush and pick off whoever comes in my view. That's the overall mentality.

And generally, I find even charging for map packs the way just about every FPS does it to be pretty weak. If you are going to pump out new maps, at least make a decent handful instead of 3-5. 3-5 new maps, which will universally always have at least half of them being terrible, only allow the longevity of replayability to stretch out so much, and the amount of time they take to push them out is atrocious.
 

Not-here-anymore

In brightest day...
Nov 18, 2009
3,028
0
0
Sorry, was one of those options 'achievements'? You're suggesting that people might pay so that xbox live goes 'boo-whip' Corporate slave - 10G?

I assume virtual goods essentially means 'normal' DLC? In which case I'd consider it if (and only if) it's actually a worthwile addition to the game (so not an extra character released months after I've completed the game, Bioware!), and scales appropriately price-wise with the content already packaged with the original software. (e.g. Not £10 for 5 multiplayer maps when the £45 pond game comes with about 20, plus a single player campaign - this applies to pretty much every FPS on the market, nowadays)
 

Dys

New member
Sep 10, 2008
2,343
0
0
Presumably they only mean to charge this on the PC platform, as people aren't going to be very inclined to pay extra subscriptions on top of xbox live or PSN (I know you don't actually pay to play on PSN, don't quote me and say it's free...you can get a subscription).

I sure as hell won't be paying extra for any of that shit, I'm personally of the opinion that most people who have bought activision first person shooters recently have been scammed (MW2 had about as much sp content in it as HL2 ep1, yet was some $80au more. HL2 ep1 has infinately more multiplayer through HL: deathmatch and the literally countless source modes, including dystopia, insurgency etc). How about you make a standout game before trying to include added subscriptions....
 

Outright Villainy

New member
Jan 19, 2010
4,334
0
0
Shamus Young said:
I can't afford to pay for that sort of content. Not when Valve is giving away the same sort of thing, only better, and more often, for free.
Hrmm, what happened to my exact words just now...

Oh yes, you just took them right out of my mouth you thief!