Activision Look To Charge For COD Online
Would you pay extra? Related stories (more)LEGO Star Wars III: The Clone Wars
Kotick: “Our Spiderman Games Suck”
DJ Hero “Best New IP Of 2009″
Article written by Gastos84 in PS3 News, Xbox 360 News, on Monday, November 16, 2009 at 10:44.
What with Blizzard making phenomenol amounts of money via the monthly subscription fee for World of Warcraft, Activision – who own Blizzard - are looking at monetising online features for some of their key titles.
One of Activision’s executives, Tom Tippl, (as reported by IGN) was recently asked whether or not they intend on translating the WoW business model into some of their other titles; Call of Duty most notably. Tippl said:
It’s definitely an aspiration that we see potential in, particularly as we look at different business models to monetize the online gameplay…
There’s good knowledge exchange happening between the Blizzard folks and our online guys.
We have great experience also on Call of Duty with the success we had on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. A lot of that knowledge is getting actually built into the Battle.Net platform and the design of that
Mr. Tippl didn’t stop there, however. He went on to explain that it’s what the fans want:
I think it’s been mutually beneficial, and you should expect us to test and ultimately launch additional online monetization models of some of some of our biggest franchises like Call of Duty.
Our gamers are telling us there’s lots of services and innovation they would like to see that they’re not getting yet. From what we see so far, additional content, as well as all the services Blizzard is offering, is that there is demand from the core gamers to pay up for that.
I’ll let the comments and opinons that are bound to follow, speak for themselves.
Source: IGN
Comments
Please note that all comments are the opinion of the individual author and not TheSixthAxis.
Latest Forum Posts
- The closest battle... literally, ever.
- So what are the most dissapointing or best games that you have bought so far?
- Anyone playing MAG?
- So what are the most dissapointing or best games that you have bought so far?
- Anyone playing MAG?
- Anyone playing MAG?
- Say cheese!
- Anyone playing MAG?
- Say cheese!
- Say cheese!
cc_star | 16/11/2009 10:47
Team TSA: Writer
5868 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Its the way of the future
Wonder if they’ll drop the single player, and just release an online only shooter with the pay to play mechanism
And before anyone get their pants in a twist over Activision, Sony and everybody else are looking at it – MAG won’t be pay to play, but you can bet your last rolo that MAG2 might be.
gnipper | 16/11/2009 10:51
Member
667 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
Agree that its bound to happen at some point. It will be interesting to see how the public react, especially those of us already paying MS best part of £40 a year for Live anyway.. But this kind of business model has Activision written all over it
hazelam | 16/11/2009 11:04
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
but i’m assuming mag will have proper dedicated servers and won’t be peer to peer like mw2 is.
that’s what you pay for when you pay subs for an mmo game, that and constant content updates.
smokeybeef | 16/11/2009 11:19
Member
249 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
“MAG won’t be pay to play, but you can bet your last rolo that MAG2 might be.”
I like the definitiveness of that sentence, right up until the ‘might’ cop-out.
“I am most definitely the king of the world…maybe”
G_The_Enemy14 | 16/11/2009 15:58
Member
697 TSA Points | Member since: Jan 2009
ha
Rob92 | 16/11/2009 19:39
Member
1230 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2008
ha i like it.
Vandix | 16/11/2009 10:49
Member
1174 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
I’d rather like to see in-game ads, the whole pay to play thing doesn’t sit well with me… I’ve already payed to get the game, why do I have to pay again to play it?
cc_star | 16/11/2009 10:54
Team TSA: Writer
5868 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
What if the game was free and you just subscribed to it like WoW, if after a couple of months you’re bored you just cancel and its cost you less than a game would have, but you’d probably have got more play out of it.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 10:57
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
but it’s not is it?
in fact the rrp is set higher than any other game out isn’t it?
true many people got it for a lot less than that but that’s because shops took the hit on the price instead of the customers.
and wow has it’s own servers not just player hosting.
they don’t just set up a matchmaking server and let us provide the hosting with no control.
that’s the same issue i have with paying for live.
Vandix | 16/11/2009 11:01
Member
1174 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
I was just thinking about that.
This system could also counteract the damage done by piracy. If the publishers get the games out in the open for, let’s say a fiver (for the costs of actually putting a game on a disc), they’ll actually remove the reason for pirating games…
cc_star | 16/11/2009 11:04
Team TSA: Writer
5868 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
The article states they are looking at the WoW business model, where in the world can you buy WoW for £50, its free online and about a tenner in the shops.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 11:06
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
they wouldn’t need to put it on disc, just let people download it for free.
many free to play mmos do it that way, they pay for themselves by microtransactions.
i’ve played a few of those and if you’re just a casual player you need never pay.
hardcore players will spend enough.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 11:10
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
you cannot get wow free, you can get a free trial but you still have to buy it after that.
and you could buy wow, or one of it’s expansions at least, for nearly 200 quid.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Warcraft-Wrath-Lich-Collectors/dp/B001GXQOUA/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1258369723&sr=1-12
hunterstryfe | 16/11/2009 21:44
Member
494 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
That WOULD be worth it, but I highly doubt that will happen, considering they would still need to make profits back from production, development and release and if people pay to play for arguments sake – 1 month and don’t like it then they would have paid well below the shelf price for a game without ever having to buy it
Amphlett | 16/11/2009 10:51
Member
1003 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
Yeah, I’d love to pay to play individual games on-line. And whilst I’m at it I’d love the option to buy individual guns. Oh wait, whilst on the subject, I would be so willing to pay for a game which costs circa £50 to have some of the single player missions cut from the release and then released afterwards in a thinly veiled disguise of ‘additional content’.
You may notice an air of sarcasm above…
As soon as Activision start charging to play the game on-line I’ll be looking for Battlefield Bad Company 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.
cc_star | 16/11/2009 10:57
Team TSA: Writer
5868 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
WoW doesn’t cost £50 it’s free, so if this replicates that model it would work out cheaper if you play the game for 5 months or less, only a very tiny percentage of games are played for more than a few weeks nevermind 5 months.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 10:59
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
wow is not free?
they’re selling the warchest pack, wow and the wrath of the lich king with guide books for both, for about fifteen quid now, not quite fifty quid but not free either.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 10:59
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
didn’t mean to put that first question mark. don’t know why i did.
Raen | 16/11/2009 11:11
Team TSA: Writer
3449 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
Yeah WoW is hugely not free. You have to buy the original game and the expansions. There’s no way to get the game for free. I think you can still get EVE:Online for free though, you have the option to download or pay to have a DVD delivered. The general point still stands.
cc_star | 16/11/2009 11:18
Team TSA: Writer
5868 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Oh yeah, its a tenner
Raen | 16/11/2009 11:21
Team TSA: Writer
3449 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
Apologies, appears I’m wrong. Have to purchase expansions, original game client can be downloaded for free from WoW site it seems with a 10 day free trial.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 12:26
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
yeah you can download a free trial, but if you want to keep playing after that you have to buy a copy.
or sign up for another free trial with another email address, but you would have to start a new character.
Amphlett | 16/11/2009 13:40
Member
1003 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
The article is talking about taking the WoW model and applying it to other Activision games, notably the COD series. So my comment was not about WoW costing £50, but about COD:MW2 costing £50.
hunterstryfe | 16/11/2009 21:46
Member
494 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
Guild Wars was free to play after buying the initial discs, but WoW def ain’t free lol
Erroneus | 16/11/2009 10:53
Wanted "Trophy Hunter" but was too late.
2773 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
They are pushing it… They are NOT Blizzard and do not have the fanbase or game to create a monthly payed service. I doubt many will hand over lots of cash each month to shoot other people online, nah people will move to other games like BF: BC2.
cc_star | 16/11/2009 11:20
Team TSA: Writer
5868 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Modern Warfare certainly does have the fan base, however the type of fans probably are used to paying for the game with nothing to pay after that, rather getting the game free of for a token amount (a tenner) and then paying a monthly sub
Watchful | 16/11/2009 11:25
Team TSA: Writer
2037 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
Don’t have the fanbase? CoD:MW was still occasionally charting recently despite being almost two years old because people were still playing it. The 5m copies of MW2 sold to Yanks, Canucks and Brits on day one were not purely the result of supermarket price cutting making some of us climb down off the fence.
If any current online-focused multi-platform console franchise is a prime candidate for a subscription-based model it’s Modern Warfare. Sure, pricing will be key, but Blizzard can give them plenty of advice on that.
Perhaps this is part of Activision’s plans to maintain revenue now they’ve finally got a clue and are reducing the number of Hero games they’re planning to release next year.
As an aside I personally think we are far less likely to see a console-exclusive title be the first to go explicitly subscription-based as the platform holders will let the big publishers take the risk to begin with. Though the presence of the Xbox LIVE gold membership blurs the line somewhat for those, like one of my friends, whose online gaming consists almost solely of Halo 3.
Raen | 16/11/2009 11:29
Team TSA: Writer
3449 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
Come on, if you’re gonna use Yanks and Canucks at least use Limeys as well.
Watchful | 16/11/2009 11:41
Team TSA: Writer
2037 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
I was trying to remember a slang term for Brits and could only think of the Australian “Poms”. Completely forgot about Limeys.
Erroneus | 16/11/2009 12:19
Wanted "Trophy Hunter" but was too late.
2773 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
MW2 has sold well because of the hype, I bet A LOT of the MW2 owners to day, are not spending many hours in the multiplayer. No doubt there is a lot of COD players online, but let’s be honest hear and take a look at the demographics for that group. A huge part of them are teenagers in the age of 13 to 20 and they do not want to spend that much cash each month or at least i hope so…
They do have a fanbase, but not a fanbase for a payed online service, not that much. Maybe Activision should team up with MS and make a Xbox Platinium service, that would properly work >_>
Watchful | 16/11/2009 12:34
Team TSA: Writer
2037 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
As others have noted, I think if MW3 cost £40-45 for the game and three or four months of online subscription that there would be enough of the hardcore who would pay a monthly sub to keep playing. They’d probably have to come up with a stronger hook to keep more people playing, but I’m sure they could come up with something. What is it that keeps WoW players playing and would it translate to an FPS?
Sadly I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find something like an Xbox “Platinum” service may not be that far off. It likely would work if MS offered you an annual subscription to your favourite monthly subscription game at a discount. Publisher gets a years subs and MS have another way of tying you to your 360 for another year. You might have hit the nail on the head. The more I think about it, the more plausible it seems.
Tuffcub | 16/11/2009 10:54
Team TSA: Writer
3446 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2008
The Dark Lord Kotick needs a new swimming pool and YOU SHALL PAY!
hazelam | 16/11/2009 12:28
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
and a yacht for the swimming pool and the yacht has to have it’s own swimming ppol.
but the swimming pool on the yacht on the swimming pool doesn’t have it’s own yacht.
:)
Amphlett | 16/11/2009 13:42
Member
1003 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
…yet.
DeathByNumbers | 16/11/2009 10:54
Member
343 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
If it’s a different way of playing, and not the only way then I don’t have a problem with it. As far as I am concerned, console games are bought or rented and for the period of time that you are in possession of them you should be entitled to use all of that games features. Not withstanding obvious costs such as broadband fees and MS Live subscriptions. If they stop making the current games, and go solely for pay to play there will be a big problem in that most people I know will simply jump ship to another title.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 10:54
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
they’re actually trying to say people are demanding to pay even more money to activision?
i call bullshit on that one.
guess now we know the real reason they cut so much from the pc version like mod support and dedicated servers.
BrendanCalls | 16/11/2009 10:55
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc - YOHIMBÉ!!!
1156 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
I am not happy about it, It is one of the joys of console gaming however to pay for online is an inevitability. It is just all about which company is willing to go first and take the massive drop in sales and the bad press that will come with it. Might as well be Activision because gamers dislike them already as it is
Fresh191 | 16/11/2009 11:15
Member
457 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2009
I agree with BrendanCalls, its another reason to dislike a company that is only interested in sucking money out of gamers without pushing quality products. Dont get me wrong MW2 is awesome but its Infinity Ward not Activision.
I cant ever see myself paying for xbox live and then paying for an extra subscription, thats the reason I have never played WOW and thats the reason why I love PS3 gaming, its free! You take that awesome word away from PS3 gamers and its like taking Tea and biscuits away from the British public, it will end in a bloody mess. As for xbox live customers, I only payed £27 for my last year but I would not want to pay anything ontop of that to play call of duty or any other game in my collection current or future and I can see a large portion of the xbox community looking else where for the game needs.
Doddsy | 16/11/2009 10:57
Totally Oscar Mike
625 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
I will not pay for online. Just put an advert in the game lobby you greedy gits
Roynaldo | 16/11/2009 11:00
Member
2512 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008
Pay?…..No.
I would spend my money on other things and let the chumps fight it out online.
BadBoyBoogie | 16/11/2009 11:09
Let There Be Rock
2516 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
+1. I concentrate on the single player and local co-op games, and give online multiplayer a miss.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 11:12
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
in that case i’d say mw2 is a renter at best, unless you got it for like 26 quid, might be worth it then.
FRUIT0FDOOM | 16/11/2009 11:05
Member
490 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2009
I’ll continue to pay for Xbox Live and would pay for PSN (if they make it more robust) but paying individual developers per game? No way, i’d hang my online gaming hat and buy that Snowboard i’ve always wanted. Gaming is great and I love it, but if they start milking us for more – i’d rather take up knitting!
brillerment | 16/11/2009 11:05
Member
115 TSA Points | Member since: Sep 2009
Very clever to implement it AFTER releasing the game though, would have dented sales a bit if they had brought this idea out beforehand.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 11:13
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
gonna dent sale of the next call of duty next year though.
Tiran Kenja | 16/11/2009 11:08
Member
209 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Wow. These guys are really going for the wallet on this franchise. First they increase the price for the box. And now they want to have people pay extra to use the only part of the game that makes it popular?
Seriously. Who buys COD to play the single player campaign? At least the people I know, who play COD games, are only getting it for the online component.
But how is that gonna work on consoles anyway? You could already be paying to be online on the Xbox (with the gold subscription), would it still cost extra there?
hazelam | 16/11/2009 11:11
Member
2986 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
could do, i don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t charge console owners as well.
obviously that’s going to annoy xbox owners especially as they already pay to play online.
Raen | 16/11/2009 11:15
Team TSA: Writer
3449 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
Just a point of clarity. Activision don’t own Blizzard. Blizzard is part of Vivendi who have a 54% stake in Activision Blizzard, meaning that it’s more accurate to say Blizzard own Activision. Yes I’m being a smartass.
Windswept fairy | 16/11/2009 11:15
Member
61 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
Personally the thought of spending £40 to £50 on a video game and then being asked to pay extra to play it online with my friends is a little much, I know Xbox live costs to play online but it is good value for what you get the thought of then paying extra for each game though ??? But I only use the PS3 and would still have a few issues with the pricing that would determine if I purchased the game or not. If however they released the game from a good price point maybe £10 to £20 with a subscription added on then maybe, but certainly not full price, as has been said by cc_star it is the way of the future, but I think I would prefer to pay extra for new armour, player skins, weapons and the sort than an actual subscription. WOW does work well though but it is a very large game with a very low price point and the client can be downloaded for free.