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

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?"

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.

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 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.

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.

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

I generally count on consumers to be morons.

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

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.

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

Subscription costs never feel justified to me.

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.

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

:rofl:

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

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.

Very few games can reasonably say they actively combat cheating.

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.

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.

People pay for Everquest?

Games cost enough as is

I didn't know you were a girl.

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.

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.

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

LOL. Do you actually believe it?

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.

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.

Noid post.

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?

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.

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.

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.

^ 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.

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

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