Activision Look To Charge For COD Online
Would you pay extra?Published 16/11/2009 at 10:44 by Gastos84
Activision Get Beefy [15]
‘Modern Warfare 2′ Attack Kotick [33]
Review: Guitar Hero: Van Halen [15]
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.« Previous 1 2 3 Next »
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Gastos84 | 16/11/2009 11:24
Team TSA: Writer
3888 TSA Points | Member since: Apr 2009
My rage toward Activision is blinding any sensible comment…
teflon | 16/11/2009 12:14
Member
1996 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
I hope I managed to get the gist of your rage below.
I truly hate Activision. Even EA never plumbed these depths, and even if they were to now, at least they’d be bringing us something original whilst doing so.
pawski | 16/11/2009 13:46
Member
194 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2009
lol they make ea look like mother teresa
bunimomike | 16/11/2009 11:25
Member
4781 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
Cheap/free games online – pay for subscription
Expensive games online (like MW2) – really should cover online costs with the initial thrown-down of money. As the highest RRP this year, it really smarts to see them potentially clamouring for more.
Raen | 16/11/2009 11:26
Team TSA: Writer
3720 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
You never know, maybe they’ll bring down the RRP next year and use this instead.
Mick939 | 16/11/2009 11:30
Member
894 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Wouldnt pay for online for one title i would pay for psn as it generally is a great service, which i find easier to use than live. I love MW2 online but im not paying for it.
DJ Judas | 16/11/2009 11:33
Epic
514 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
It’d be a step I do not want to see if this goes through, because people will inevitably pay it
The reason WoW works so well is because the world is huge and the cost is justified by the server power required for the thousands of players each one holds.
Not only does it handle all those players actions at once, but it also controls a massive world full of AI monsters and NPCs etc. What they’re looking at making us pay monthly for COD is still player Vs player in the same small levels.
Battlefield 2 / 2142 achieved so much more than modern warefare 2 achieves now……… nearly 5 years ago………without monthly payments.
The only model worth paying monthly for in an FPS would be the Planetside type model, which wasn’t very successful.
But slap ‘Modern Warefare 3′ on it and watch it get lapped up.
DJ Judas | 16/11/2009 11:34
Epic
514 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
sorry about the lack of paragraphing, at work and wrote it in notepad………pasting didn’t carry across the format
carlosfilippsen | 16/11/2009 11:59
Member
1316 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009
I would pay for online on COD for sure its the best online multiplayer game there is.
DJ Judas | 16/11/2009 12:08
Epic
514 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Best online FPS maybe.
teflon | 16/11/2009 12:12
Member
1996 TSA Points | Member since: May 2009
Do they have no shame?
Not only are they gouging their clientele with a price hike to their biggest franchise, but now they want to go in for a second gouge? This is just ridiculous.
And why exactly is it that we’re not getting these innovations yet? is it that you’re greedy scum sucking *rs* wipes who consider $310 million in a single day to not be enough money to justify giving people something new?
A-holes. After a momentary lapse courtesy of Morrison’s, followed by a week of self loathing, the boycott is most definitely back on.
makibah | 16/11/2009 12:40
Member
331 TSA Points | Member since: Jun 2009
This would end my CODing online. There are plenty of decent non-activision games to play online. One of the reasons I got a PS3 was the free online. £50 for a game, £10 for map packs so I can continue to play without getting kicked, that’s enough.
shields_t | 16/11/2009 12:58
Member
1646 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008
Well I never got into COD4 multiplayer due mainly to the fact that I owned it on the PC, and sitting in front of my computer shooting away at kids who far exceed my own ability just doesn’t appeal. I did get MW2 last week though and quite enjoyed the multiplayer matches I have played so far.
Would I pay for it though? Not a chance, I’m just not that interested in online play.
Knowing Activision, they’d release it at £100 with a plastic gun that instead of pointing at the screen and shooting like a light gun, you’d need to push the colour coded buttons down the side in time with when Tav McSoapdish shouts out “code green, code green”! They’d then do you for a monthly fee that would amount to more than I spend to actually get on the internet on a monthly basis.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 13:17
Member
3946 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
i tell you, i don’t envy treyarch, they’re going to inherit all the ill feeling from mw2 but little of the hype for next year’s call of duty.
cc_star | 16/11/2009 13:24
Team TSA: Writer
7866 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Hype started months ago
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2009/05/13/call-of-duty-7-not-wwii/
hazelam | 16/11/2009 17:16
Member
3946 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
don’t remember that, treyarch finally doing a non wwii cod.
but that’s all i’ve heard about cod7 and they’re still going to have to deal with anger from gamers over mw2.
you’d think when they want to keep selling new versions of these games they’d be a little bit more tactful with their announcements.
especially kotick, you may say he’s not actually a bad guy, and maybe he’s not but some of the things he’s said seem designed to aggravate gamers.
the thinking at activision appears to be that this game is so successful they can pretty much do whatever they want.
accurate or not that’s the impression they’re giving.
to late for it to affect mw2 that much, but you’ll see a much more muted reaction to next year’s cod.
TheShepanator | 16/11/2009 17:39
Member
561 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2009
Personally I don’t see why CoD is so popular anyway! Personally I only found the first 2 games any good, the rest simply mediocre at best.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 18:27
Member
3946 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
because aside from anything else they are actually pretty good games.
they’re not deserving of the hype and i don’t like them personally, that’s more to do with the genre than the games themselves, but that doesn’t change the quality of the product.
pawski | 16/11/2009 13:44
Member
194 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2009
hang on, when i bought mw2 i knew the multiplayer element was free of charge. so will activision refund me or is there some legal loop-hole that says once i buy the game they can do what the hell they like? when i see the programming team busking or begging in the street, i will be happy to pay up then. greedy greedy greedy.
hazelam | 16/11/2009 18:28
Member
3946 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
i’m sure there’s something in some small print somewhere that says they can start charging if they want to.
pretty much standard for any user agreement nowdays.
Amphlett | 16/11/2009 13:49
Member
1247 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
I can’t blame Kotick. He’s doing a fantastic job and his employers and share holders must be jumping with joy. Putting forward an idea such as monthly subscriptions for the COD series would have had the share holders exploding with excitement! Chi-ching!
TheDeathAvenger | 16/11/2009 14:16
Member
1653 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
As long as the money you pay is used to improve and add to the game then i have no problem with it. I do think that it should be a choice though, you can pay and get extra stuff (content, features, etc) or not pay and just do with the standard content and features.
a inferior race | 16/11/2009 16:30
I'm special
1997 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009
But would the standard features really be standard or would they be cut back.
bajere | 16/11/2009 14:49
Member
1067 TSA Points | Member since: Aug 2008
Activision to up the price of something?? What a shock! And here’s me thinking £55 was enough for ONE game…
If the game was free, like WOW, then they might have a case…if not, forget about.
Dexter17 | 16/11/2009 16:00
Member
3274 TSA Points | Member since: Jun 2009
Would I pay extra?
After I have spent my hard-earned cash on a game, no way would I be caught paying even more for an online mode.
H3O | 16/11/2009 16:19
Member
461 TSA Points | Member since: Forever
Bad Company 2. It’s getting more and more attractive everytime someone at Activision says something.