Question of the Day, August 13, 2010

[T-Bone24]

The only online shooter I consistently play is Team Fortress 2, and it gets updated damn near daily for free since launch. I don't need anything else. I suppose I would pay for maps, however, but only for a reasonable price. What Call of Duty is doing, squeezing every last penny they can out of people with overpriced add-ons and more expensive games, is something that I cannot approve of.

 

[Mass B]

Thank goodness they're not trying to do that for anything important. The day when games became nothing without DLC would be a very dark day.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

Is there an option stronger than absolutely never ever what the hell is wrong with you for asking no way not happening emphatically NO? Darn, I guess I'll just pick "I wouldn't pay for any of those" then. Online multiplayer isn't even something I play in shooters, so it will be a cold day in hell when you catch me forking over money for any of that crap.

 

[antman9000]

if i had to pick, id pick tournament play, but only if you actually win it, you get money back. but then they would have to make it 18+ i think... but other then that, i dont think i would.

 

[imnot]

nope not paying for something mods and valve give for free.

 

[joshthor]

i wont pay a cent. here is what they need to do if they want subscription money: make a full on call of duty mmo that is actually hosted by their servers. if they tried to make me pay a subscription for online call of duty where they would still have regular people host games on their own home internet connection i would be the first person to walk down with a torch and set activision offices on fire.

 

[rayen020]

provided the online good that could be purchased with real money wouldn't break the game for the people who didn't pay real money, i don't have a problem with studios offering various things to be purchased for real money. cosmetic changes, extra acheivements and access to pay only servers is fine. I wouldn't pay for it. touranment play (to a degree) should be free as should leaderboards and such, as well all weapons and gadgets tht will affect gameplay.

if the game demanded money for things a basic shooter should have then i would consider the game broken and and stop playing, and get a refund if possible. if your going to charge a monthly fee then charge a monthly fee, if not then don't withhold gameplay till i fork over the dough. especially if i had to pay to buy/install your game. i don't have enough moey to buy fancy digital items so i can't pay for that stuff, and even if i could i wouldn't because i know there are gamers like me and supporting game breakers bought with money aleinates them. i don't have a problem with people paying for extras and stuff in games i do have a problem with those people being lofted onto a pedestal by the developers.

 

[Rakkana]

Not in a million years. And if they push this I promise boycotting.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I think a lot of these devs severely overestimate how much we like their games. They were really pushing things when they asked for $15 for some maps and I was surprised to see how many people bought it.
Same with R*. I didn?t think Liberty City was interesting enough to hold up the original game and two $20 mission packs. Their recent Red Dead DLC is also absurdly overpriced.
Now to start asking people to pay for stuff that should be in the game to begin with is just a scam. I?m not saying it wont make them money (gamers can be real suckers when it comes to getting value for their dollar) but I don?t think they have the PR clout right now.

 

[viranimus]

I have got to say, this is actually a good thing about WoW and other MMOs. They show us the level of content one should expect from a monthly paid service. If you combined all of the poll items, it still wouldnt be enough content, even if you dropped the price.

I mean hypothetically you could justify making a shooter a stand alone paid service if you added together the poll list in one bundle, plus added Char customization options, multiple series of different gear, such as weapon, armors, gadgets (traps, Heavy artiliry, ect) Then add in series of maps for training missions that could be run offline or on and have an extensive variety of them to choose from of varying degrees of difficulty. A centralized lobby system allowing you to buy sell and upgrade...

Seriously you know what, So much would have to be added in order to justify a monthly sub fee you would have to create an entirely new game from ground up. So unless your willing to put forth that much content developers, dont even bother thinking about an additional sub fee. You will only be shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Tarakos]

While hardly anybody here would pay extra for things they should already have in a $60 game, I know that there are many many people who would. All those people that bought those map packs come to mind.

 

[Zing]

I voted never on principal, but I wouldn't care if they added Tournament fees, as long as they stopped at that. As I don't plan on ever attending a gaming tournament of any kind, especially not Call of Duty.

 

[Phoenixlight]

I don't player first person shooters enough to warrant an unnecessary purchase.

 

[GodKlown]

When it comes to online shooters, I hate that some people have more money that skill when it comes to "virtual goods". You really want that expensive sniper rifle that does ridiculous damage and never misses, but don't want to spend the next three to six months working up your levels to unlock it? Well why not shell out an additional $20-$30 and bypass all that boring stuff and just get it right now so you can just be a total dick to everyone who wants to work for a reward? At a time when you can just pay your way to being unbeatable in a game, what's the point of playing except to brag? Without goals to work towards, what is the motivation to keep playing something other than to just have a high virtual body count?

When "virtual goods" mean clothing or a fancy paint job for your weapons, it seems just wasteful. If you have to pay to be able to have a guild house or a mount instead of having those things be something you can eventually earn the right to, that seems pretty lame to me. Having to shell out real money for virtual property is like buying a mink coat for your invisible friend. Sure, you think they look great in it, but it doesn't actually mean a damn thing in the end. If you've got the extra money laying around and enjoy playing a game and want to continue to support the developers, good for you. Me... I don't know that I've ever enjoyed a game so much that I would want to give them more than the cost of the software needed to play the game. For me, that's seems to be enough of an investment, and they should be more grateful to get that instead of trying to bleed people dry for something that can never actually have.

 

[ultimateownage]

No fuckin' way. Get your paws of my wallet, Activision! Valve have the right idea with the TF2 updates.

 

[ninja555]

If the shooter is any good, the developers are probably giving it away for free in the patches. These shooter probably also have a good mod community working with the developers to add even more extra content.

 

[khaimera]

I would pay to have my guns look like furry animals instead. And the other characters to look like furries also, instead of soldiers that look my own team so that by the time I realize they are not on my team, I'm dead.

 

[Le_Lisra]

I will not pay for anything like that.

"But games are getting expensive, we need to pay more"

No.

 

[T_ConX]

Pay for content in Call of Duty? HA! I wouldn't play that turdpile of a shooter even if THEY PAID ME!