Activision strongly considers monthly bill for portion of Multiplayer - Games

They should consider sucking my dick

[QUOTE=zombojoe;30152127]Inb4 they call it IWnet 2.0[/QUOTE] [quote]Activision Blizzard Inc. plans to launch an online service called Call of Duty Elite[/quote]

The sad thing is that people will stil play, a lot. :frown:

[QUOTE=Protocol7;30151015]i'm not getting MW3 if it turns into a pay to play game I mean think about the shit you have to pay for already Using an Xbox as an example: Xbox 360: $200 Internet: About $40/mo for decent stuff Xbox Live Gold: 12 months is about $40 The game itself: $60 Pay to play: say $8/mo like the Netflix price they mentioned A mappack: $15 Total that up... you'd have paid $363 for the game. For just the game itself, it's still $83. For one fucking game. That has less content than some of the $20 shitty games you can get off Steam. Fuck you, Activision.[/QUOTE] And if you live in Australia you can expect to pay roughly double for the game, the map packs and the subscription as well

[QUOTE=PredatorKing;30152698]And if you live in Australia you can expect to pay roughly double for the game, the map packs and the subscription as well[/QUOTE] Except the subscription and the map packs are the same thing, and none of it is required. Where's the bad reading rating?

So the new system will be abbreviated as CoDE. Wow, just as generic as the game they pride themselves on.

I thought this was just for their CoD Elite game and not for MW3?

This was their last chance to redeem the COD franchise, and they fucked it up before they even released the trailer.

MW3 will just be same old, same old. Besides, Battlefield 3 has got a good chance of kicking Activision/Inifinity Ward in the balls when it comes out.

Seriously, I wouldn't be suprised if they released a console for $599 exclusively for Call of Duty.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;30151142]Yeah. I remember when the gaming industry had advances, new gameplay mechanics, increasing graphics, that sort of shit. Then consoles came around. They got better and better until recently. Let's take a look at some shit. (late) 1993: [img]http://eriktwicelohaceotravez.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/doom1_01.jpg[/img] 2004: [img]http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/790/790583/half-life-2-orange-box-20070521060818405.jpg[/img] 2010: [img]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/9/2010/05/black_ops.jpg[/img] Over these past 6-7 years, things have gotten a little shinier. That's all. Before that, we were making HUGE leaps and bounds with technology and gameplay.[/QUOTE] right now I'm having more fun and other emotions with the first game than I've had with the last one.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;30151142]Yeah. I remember when the gaming industry had advances, new gameplay mechanics, increasing graphics, that sort of shit. Then consoles came around. They got better and better until recently. Let's take a look at some shit. (late) 1993: *Doom* 2004: *Half-Life 2* 2010: *BlOps* Over these past 6-7 years, things have gotten a little shinier. That's all. Before that, we were making HUGE leaps and bounds with technology and gameplay.[/QUOTE] It's not consoles, it's greed. Consoles have been around since the 70s, blaming them for the recent trend of shit is retarded. Games are going to shit because 12 year olds have no taste and their shitty parents don't give a fuck what they play. So companies like Activision who only see the bottom line pump out as much generic shit as possible, changing it slightly and calling it a new game, 12 year olds eat it up and parents buy it.

I'll just continue to play counter strike source, a game which has outlasted 6 Call of Duty games and is still going strong and it only costs like $20.

There has to be something more to this. Not even activision could think that anyone would pay a subscription fee for just stat-tracking and social networking.

[QUOTE=Samoht;30153757]There has to be something more to this. Not even activision could think that anyone would pay a subscription fee for just stat-tracking and social networking.[/QUOTE] You'd be suprised.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;30151015]i'm not getting MW3 if it turns into a pay to play game I mean think about the shit you have to pay for already Using an Xbox as an example: Xbox 360: $200 Internet: About $40/mo for decent stuff Xbox Live Gold: 12 months is about $40 The game itself: $60 Pay to play: say $8/mo like the Netflix price they mentioned A mappack: $15 Total that up... you'd have paid $363 for the game. For just the game itself, it's still $83. For one fucking game. That has less content than some of the $20 shitty games you can get off Steam. Fuck you, Activision.[/QUOTE] For Australians (or me in this case): Xbox 360: $200 Internet: About $100/mo Xbox Live Gold 12 Months: $90 Pay to play: $8-10/mo Mappack: $15 Activison can get fucked.

Today someone was talking about MW3. The main reason, it seemed, that he was so excited about the game was, "You like, go everywhere. France, Germany, America, England. Everywhere in the world!" People ARE this stupid. They WILL buy it.

[QUOTE=Samoht;30153757]There has to be something more to this. Not even activision could think that anyone would pay a subscription fee for just stat-tracking and social networking.[/QUOTE] [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12875849/reactions/youmustbenewhere.png[/img] Samoht, meet Activision.

New Headline, Activision strongly considers billing and sued CEO for being a ass to gaming community

Misleading title, I thought they were gonna start to charge to even play multiplayer. If its just map pack related or something of the sort, then I don't give a shit. I play without any map packs and I'm good. I'm also not into those silly videos and whatnot so its 60€ if I end up buying it or nothing most likely. What WILL have a true monthly subscription will be the CoD "mmo" based game. That will only be mp and will have a monthly subscription to play.

Judging by the poll, 32 people still has not learned the lesson.....

Don't they make enough money on shitty mappacks? [QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;30154766]Judging by the poll, 32 people still has not learned the lesson.....[/QUOTE] Judging by the poll, 33 people are not the Facepunchers that automatically go "COD SO SHITTY FPS LOLOLOL 12 YEAR OLDS". You can't guarantee a game is bad if it isn't out yet.

[QUOTE=AWarGuy;30154100]For Australians (or me in this case): Xbox 360: $200 Internet: About $100/mo Xbox Live Gold 12 Months: $90 Pay to play: $8-10/mo [b]Mappack: $15[/b] Activison can get fucked.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind though that even when the price doesn't get flat out jacked up for Australia, on Xbox live you still get ripped off like fuck when it comes to MS points. IIRC (been a long time since I've had an Xbox), 800 MS points in Australia is about 15 dollars.

if they want montly money they need to take like 20/30$ for the game not 60$

[QUOTE=Mortson;30153120]MW3 will just be same old, same old. Besides, Battlefield 3 has got a good chance of kicking Activision/Inifinity Ward in the balls when it comes out.[/QUOTE] In what way? All the kids playing CoD will still play CoD because anything that isn't CoD is 'gay'.

[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;30154766]Judging by the poll, 32 people still has not learned the lesson.....[/QUOTE] Or maybe... [QUOTE=JustGman;30154829] Judging by the poll, 33 people are not the Facepunchers that automatically go "COD SO SHITTY FPS LOLOLOL 12 YEAR OLDS". You can't guarantee a game is bad if it isn't out yet.[/QUOTE] More like that. Maybe said people actually enjoy the game and don't whine like the usual FPer. OR, it was switched and the ones who say No are in denial and will get the game later. And I find it funny how people say BF3 will be this and will be that and will beat Activision. In my view, no one is beating no one. I don't get it why everyone pits a company with another with [b]2 very generic titles. Yes, BF3 WILL be generic aswell.[/b] It looked soo generic, the only thing that looked different was the size of the maps. All else was boring and generic. Neither one nor the other will beat anything. Their fun to play and thats it. Come and get me FP.

[QUOTE=JustGman;30154829]Don't they make enough money on shitty mappacks? Judging by the poll, 33 people are not the Facepunchers that automatically go "COD SO SHITTY FPS LOLOLOL 12 YEAR OLDS". You can't guarantee a game is bad if it isn't out yet.[/QUOTE] ... It's a Call of Duty game, of course it will be mediocre at best.

[QUOTE=dass;30154981]And I find it funny how people say BF3 will be this and will be that and will beat Activision. In my view, no one is beating no one. I don't get it why everyone pits a company with another with [B]2 very generic titles. Yes, BF3 WILL be generic aswell.[/B] It looked soo generic, the only thing that looked different was the size of the maps. All else was boring and generic. Neither one nor the other will beat anything. Their fun to play and thats it.[/QUOTE] You know, at least they bothered to make an entirely new engine (all be it, based on the BC2 engine), instead of slapping a new coat of paint on an engine which hasn't had any major changes since who knows when (I mean really, in this day and age they have a different launcher for SP and MP, I know it's not really a big deal but it can be annoying swapping between coop and MP). While BF3 may or may not be generic, at least it will have (most likely) improved upon BC2 and, hopefully, BF2. I mean take a second to look at the situation; from what we know right now MW3 has yet another bad storyline (opinions), the same engine as before, the only feature we actually know they added is some pay-to-use something or another. Let's not forget that IW is a shadow of it's former self and there are three dev teams working on the game (which doesn't mean it will be better or worse, just food for thought). On the other hand, BF3 has improved (from BC2) destruction, jets, prone, 64 players, huge maps, a very powerful lighting system, EA sports animation system, and to top it all off, it's being built by a development team who has been making battlefield games for a long time. In reality though it's hard to judge how generic BF3's gameplay is because it's on a completely new engine with a lot of features which could change how the game is played; MW3 on the other hand is a lot easier to guess at how gameplay will be. As a note, I'm not buying MW3 partly because BF3 is coming out at the same time, and I would much prefer to get BF3, and partly because the only reason I had gotten the last two was because my friends were getting it as well; now my friends are getting BF3, so it's a win win.

[QUOTE=Caelx;30155006]... It's a Call of Duty game, of course it will be mediocre at best.[/QUOTE] To be completly honest, I think you guys exagerate alot. They aren't that bad. Sure they aren't MGS or ME or DeusEx level, but they aren't that bad either. Most of the hate is biased and fueled by other things in the end.

They should make the whole multiplayer portion one giant free roam map and call it an MMOFPS with a ridiculous monthly charge and a "winning premium"