If games like CoD actually do end up with subscription fees...

[Kane Knight]

So Bobby Kotick said he'd like to turn to subscription services as soon as "tomorrow, if possible" or something to that effect. I seriously doubt anyone's going to be waking up to a subscription notice on their fave activision titles any time soon, but this ain't the first time this has been tossed around.

So work with the hypothetical. Say the next CoD title has a subscription service. Or pick any other game...I'm only "picking on" the CoD series because of the phenomenal sales of the series, etc.

Think it'd harm multiplayer if this started to happen? or would people just bitch, moan, and grab their ankles? Would other franchises get a boost for "free multiplayer?"

[Blitz]

Depends on the cost, obviously. I wouldn't mind paying $5 a month for COD multiplayer, but anymore than that and I'm not so sure.

Regardless, there would obviously be a very large contingent of fans who would bitch, bitch, bitch. But COD is popular enough that I don't think it'd be a very big dent in the multiplayer community.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

I'd hope people wouldn't be morons, but I think they'd do numbers that would be good enough to continue it.

Guess it all depends on content, but I can't see Activision doing much different, despite what Kotick claims.

[HeartBreakMan2k]

I think there would be a pretty major drop initially; and titles with free online would reap the benefits. That being said, I do think it'd be a snowball effect of other 5 star franchises following suit and it ultimately (and unfortunately) becomes a standard that people accept.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

I just can't fathom people paying money for a shooter. But I've not played a non-Valve shooter online since... Er... Goldeneye on N64 emulators I think.

[LoDownM]

I would not play CoD if I had to pay a monthly fee.

[Kane Knight]

I'd hope people wouldn't be morons, but I think they'd do numbers that would be good enough to continue it.

Guess it all depends on content, but I can't see Activision doing much different, despite what Kotick claims.

I generally count on consumers to be morons.

[D Mac]

Only if they used that fee to fix issues and stop cheating and shit.

[Funky Fly]

If they were going to charge a subscription fee, they'd have to provide a fuckton more maps and other content than what they have right now. Just not cool charging more without added content.

[El Fangel]

I would just find the most similar free online game and play that instead.

Subscription costs never feel justified to me.

[alvarado52]

i wouldnt pay a dime for multiplayer in ANY game. This is something that has, and should, be a standard free of charge issue. If they ever tried that, i hope the majority of gamers balk at it so it fails miserably.

xbox live is bad enough, but reasonable consider the service offered and the stable 'OS' type of portal for gaming.

[D Mac]

Yeah paying 60 bucks for new games is pretty steep in itself.

[G]

I would just find the most similar free online game and play that instead.

Subscription costs never feel justified to me.

But what if you can't go prone?!?!!?

[D Mac]

:rofl:

[LoDownM]

Only if they used that fee to fix issues and stop cheating and shit.

Won't happen. MMO's charge monthly fees and they still have cheats and game breaking glitches sometimes.

[The Mackem]

I would not play CoD if I had to pay a monthly fee.

This and I don't bother with map packs as I'm not big on paying for DLC, in fact I haven't done it at all yet.

[Kane Knight]

Only if they used that fee to fix issues and stop cheating and shit.

Very few games can reasonably say they actively combat cheating.

If they were going to charge a subscription fee, they'd have to provide a fuckton more maps and other content than what they have right now. Just not cool charging more without added content.

More and more MMOs are both charging subscription fees and having premium content, too. I'm not saying this will happen if console games go "online subscription," But given the likely contenders are EA and Activision, I somehow doubt they're going to give up paid DLC.

Again, not sure it's going to happen, but I'm pretty sure someone's going to be the first, and I'm pretty sure it's going to be a big franchise that does it first. I mean, it almost has to be. I doubt if some third tier game did it, it'd fail miserably.

The sad thing is, it may be Microsoft who actually fights this, since its their policy that has prevented almost all MMOs from hitting the 360. You know, since they want to justify their fees for Live Gold.

[BigDaddyCool]

Crap, I just got X-Box gold...now I have the pay for each individual video game to play online...I can easily go back to just playing single player.

[FearedSanctity]

I'm already paying for Live to play games online, I'm not gonna pay for Live for the ability to pay to play games online. I know a lot of people who still haven't even bought the map packs, so IMO this would effect the amount of players quite a bit

[BigDaddyCool]

It is one thing to pay for say an Everquest or WoW because you don't have to pay someone else for the ability to play online first (on top of internet subscription) and those are huge world maps.

[Kane Knight]

I'm already paying for Live to play games online, I'm not gonna pay for Live for the ability to pay to play games online. I know a lot of people who still haven't even bought the map packs, so IMO this would effect the amount of players quite a bit

On the other hand, the Stimulus pack was a record setting piece of DLC. Might not affect it as bad as you think. Or still be quite profitable.

[Kane Knight]

It is one thing to pay for say an Everquest or WoW because you don't have to pay someone else for the ability to play online first (on top of internet subscription) and those are huge world maps.

People pay for Everquest?

[Innovator]

Games cost enough as is

[BigDaddyCool]

When I played they did.

[Kane Knight]

When I played they did.

I didn't know you were a girl.

[BigDaddyCool]

Yes you did.

[Requiem]

What? I must be missing the Everquest joke.

Also, I really don't see 'typical' FPS games going pay2play.

Reason is, the MMO genre itself is quite huge and bustling right now. A game has to be designed with a subscription in mind.. not just have it tacked on because they can. PLENTY of recent actual subscription based FPS games, with progression, etc.. have a hard enough time staying afloat. I really doubt there is enough money potential for regular FPS games like CoD to start charging people. The outrage would be insane, unless they were actually touting the next CoD game as an MMO with a lot more features than the average FPS.

There is an FPSMMO in development by the name of Dust 514 that I would pay $15 a month for before I'd ever consider paying a dime for CoD online.

[Requiem]

Also, guarantee the MMO community is a lot more finicky than anyone who plays just FPSs. Have to really impress to succeed in the genre. A little 'fanboy rage' goes a long way and MMOers have a very mob-like mentality when they dislike something.

[Kane Knight]

Reason is, the MMO genre itself is quite huge and bustling right now. A game has to be designed with a subscription in mind.. not just have it tacked on because they can. PLENTY of recent actual subscription based FPS games, with progression, etc.. have a hard enough time staying afloat.

Can you name one with a comparable Pedigree to the title this came in response to?

Also, guarantee the MMO community is a lot more finicky than anyone who plays just FPSs. Have to really impress to succeed in the genre. A little 'fanboy rage' goes a long way and MMOers have a very mob-like mentality when they dislike something.

LOL. Do you actually believe it?

[Requiem]

Suppose I should clarify 'shooters' and not just FPS, lest we get into a TPS vs FPS argument here. :shifty: And PLENTY was probably the wrong word, used more for emphasis than anything. My bad.

However:

Planetside - arguably the only 'successful' MMOFPS - peaked at 75k subscriptions, published by SOE who was a giant at the time, down to 22k in 2007 and couldn't find anything about more recent numbers.. last I heard, servers were pretty empty

Tabula Rasa - INSANELY HUGE budget - cancelled

Global Agenda - Recently released, struggling already to find subscribers

APB - Already getting nonstop hate about how it's not worth the monthly fee, and it's not even released yet. Several 'trials' are going on pre-release right now, and it has gotten plenty of negative attention.

Now, I realize none of those have Call of Duty in their title. But MMOers are, as I said, a finicky bunch. Tabula Rasa was a hype machine. Had a well-known developer attached to it, and a budget of 106mil. It has been shut down.

Also, I said UNLESS they tout it as an MMO. Meaning that yes, I feel a CoD -MMO- would probably succeed financially. Would it last? Eh... maybe. In my opinion, it would be the WoW of the FPSMMO's. Likely not the highest quality or most innovative game, but probably polished and easy to get into.

But simply charging a fee (even $5 a month) for the next CoD game, would be foolish and would spell the death of their series. What's unfortunate, is that when large companies try this sort of thing, it encourages smaller companies to try it as well. So if they did attempt it, there would likely be copycats, and it would fuck with the genre's stability for the next 7-8 years.

As far as what I was talking about, with the whole mob mentality bit.. Well, I have witnessed it firsthand over the past 10 years I've played MMOs. Companies underestimate the power of community websites. MMO sites are a hub for gamers of all kinds, who have NO problem voicing their dislike for a game, a company, or even just features in a game. Sometimes, to the point that one game with a dozen complainers can turn thousands of people against it. Darkfall Online is a great example of this. HUGE hype. 7 years of hype. Had a bumpy release,and then BAM. Forums are flooded. Can't tell you how many people I see turned away simply from the things people say about it, without ever having given it a try themselves.

All of that likely isn't a direct correlation to how it would work out in this exact case, seeing as CoD has a large fanbase already, but I feel the success of the game would be nowhere near what they want out of it, nor do I think it would be good for the genre.

[Emperor Smeat]

I doubt it would be "cheap" if they wanted to charge for a monthly or yearly subscription since they already proved people are willing to buy map packs for $15 when the sweet spot used to be $5 and later $10.

E.A., THQ, and Ubisoft are already experimenting with new ways of generating money by either having just 1 copy have "free" online play or making people pay a fee if they bought the game used.

[Kane Knight]

Noid post.

[Kane Knight]

I doubt it would be "cheap" if they wanted to charge for a monthly or yearly subscription since they already proved people are willing to buy map packs for $15 when the sweet spot used to be $5 and later $10.

E.A., THQ, and Ubisoft are already experimenting with new ways of generating money by either having just 1 copy have "free" online play or making people pay a fee if they bought the game used.

I know about EA's deal, but I haven't seen anything on THQ or Ubisoft. I've seen their DRM issues, but what are they doing specifically?

[Emperor Smeat]

Might have been just EA with their sports titles but I think THQ was considering having a 1 pass per account/player for online play regardless if it was a new or used game. THQ's fee doesn't offer free demos of online play unlike EA's plan.

[El Fangel]

Just want to throw this in.
Charging a fee to have access to pay for a fee for an online multiplayer is far different then having to pay for net to play WoW.

As with the internet, it gives you access to do a lot more then just play WoW.

Charing to play WoW, while charging for internet access to only play WoW, would be akin to charging to play CoD after already paying for XBL.

[Kane Knight]

Just want to throw this in.
Charging a fee to have access to pay for a fee for an online multiplayer is far different then having to pay for net to play WoW.

As with the internet, it gives you access to do a lot more then just play WoW.

Charing to play WoW, while charging for internet access to only play WoW, would be akin to charging to play CoD after already paying for XBL.

Previous pay titles on the XBox consoles have been playable from a Silver account. Not defending the practice, I'm just saying.

[Funky Fly]

Well, I finished Phantasy Star Universe just recently, and it turns out the MMO portion is $15 USD, so probably $20 CDN, a month. You need to play the MMO portion to get the final 250 gamerscore. Kinda gay. I'm not about to shell out $15 - $20 for a sub par online experience (in a dated game btw) because I am an achievement whore.

[El Fangel]

^ See, that. Its bullshit.

Want to make gamers happy? Let them game for free.
Of course that would be absurd, so why not compromise by making DLC fees free after a year, it keeps the consumer happy and probably more likely to buy your stuff in the future.

[Funky Fly]

BTW, Gears 2 and The Godfather have reduced pricing on their DLC.

[El Fangel]

See, Gears and Godfather knows what's going on.

[Extreme Angle]

^ See, that. Its bullshit.

Want to make gamers happy? Let them game for free.
Of course that would be absurd, so why not compromise by making DLC fees free after a year, it keeps the consumer happy and probably more likely to buy your stuff in the future.

Yeah, or atleast do what Bungie used to do with halo, when the latest DLC was released the previous would become free.

[Kane Knight]

BTW, Gears 2 and The Godfather have reduced pricing on their DLC.

Crackdown cut down on the price of some of its DLC, as well. A few XBLA games were permanently reduced in price, too. It certainly makes sense.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

free after a year, it keeps the consumer happy and probably more likely to buy your stuff in the future.

The idea's great in theory, but the problem is that it wouldn't hold with shareholders.

If Bobby Kotick was all about the consumer with giving things as goodwill gestures and suggested to their share holders that the Modern Warfare DLC becomes free when MW2 came out, even though MW1 was still in the top 20 most played on XBL the month after MW2 came out, he would have been shot down for making a revenue stream disappear, no matter how small a stream it was at that point.

And the "More likely to buy their stuff in the future" argument doesn't wash either because more people bought MW2 than MW.

The only way things will change will be if they don't buy it, but even if every single registered user of TPWW past present and future saw this, agreed and had the willpower to follow through with not buying Activision products until they change grabbing for every penny it can, there would still be millions more to convince.

They're a company and a damn profitable at that right now. If we're too stupid to buy, they're very smart in selling.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Yeah, or atleast do what Bungie used to do with halo, when the latest DLC was released the previous would become free.

MS and Bungies principles with their business when XBox Live started were very similar. MS were smart and knew that they had to build a kind of sense of community to not only establish the XBox brand, but also the justify the XBox Live charge and help build a lot of loyalty with consumers, because they'd already seen Sega, Nintendo and Sony have strong followings which helps them a lot.

What you've seen is Microsoft lure you in and now they've got you, everybody has a price, as we've seen by not allowing Valve to have it's DLC free.

[Kane Knight]

The idea's great in theory, but the problem is that it wouldn't hold with shareholders.

If Bobby Kotick was all about the consumer with giving things as goodwill gestures and suggested to their share holders that the Modern Warfare DLC becomes free when MW2 came out, even though MW1 was still in the top 20 most played on XBL the month after MW2 came out, he would have been shot down for making a revenue stream disappear, no matter how small a stream it was at that point.

And the "More likely to buy their stuff in the future" argument doesn't wash either because more people bought MW2 than MW.

The only way things will change will be if they don't buy it, but even if every single registered user of TPWW past present and future saw this, agreed and had the willpower to follow through with not buying Activision products until they change grabbing for every penny it can, there would still be millions more to convince.

They're a company and a damn profitable at that right now. If we're too stupid to buy, they're very smart in selling.

The sad thing is that their idea of being more profitable isn't more good products, but instead trying to whack the consumers.

I wonder how long gaming stays recession proof.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

I wonder that too. They must know that people will be driven away if quality stays low.

I know they're a completley different company now really, but they must see paralells drawing with the "pump out masses amount of crap and hope it sticks" methodology they're doing now and the Atari led video game crash.

It could be just around the corner, more households own Wii's than anything else and the shovelware they're subjected to could turn some of these first time gamers off forever. Nintendo's keeping up the game quality somewhat, but even they must be drowned out at some point.

[Kane Knight]

I wonder that too. They must know that people will be driven away if quality stays low.

I know they're a completley different company now really, but they must see paralells drawing with the "pump out masses amount of crap and hope it sticks" methodology they're doing now and the Atari led video game crash.

It could be just around the corner, more households own Wii's than anything else and the shovelware they're subjected to could turn some of these first time gamers off forever. Nintendo's keeping up the game quality somewhat, but even they must be drowned out at some point.

I'm not sure they're thinking that, simply because games like Halo and MW2 are selling like hotcakes. FPS are cheap to produce, relatively easy to sell, etc. And several major titles that sell well are shooters. So especially in this field, it seems unlikely they care. People bitch they're paying fifteen dollars for two new maps (and one old one or whatever), but they're setting DLC records off it. Given their attitude, I'd imagine all they're seeing is dollar signs.

After all, I'm not sure we can get here without some serious myopia.