Activision strongly considers monthly bill for portion of Multiplayer - Games

[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] *Based on one year Xbox 360 4GB: $200 Internet: $40/mo ($480/yr) Xbox Live Gold 12 Months: $60 Video Game: $60 Monthly Pay To Play: $8 ($96/yr) Map Pack: $15 (about 3 map packs each game, so $45) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Total: $941 That's how people stay in business...by taking your money. I canceled my membership and stopped using Xbox when I heard that they were raising the price up to $60 a year for gold. It just didn't seem worth it to me, and for the amount of time that I actually played online. I'm putting all my video game money towards my PC, Steam, and retail computer games.

PC gaming just DOES pay off in the end. "GAMIN SYSTEM BE 1K$!!!" yeah, CoD system be 800 and THEN 105$ AND 8$ a month to play. Have fun!

[QUOTE=dass;30155667]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.[/QUOTE] Mediocre is a fancy way of saying "woefully average". They aren't bad, they just don't excel in any particular area.

IQ Test #1 = You buy MW3. Fail. IQ Test #2 = You pay EXTRA for small maps and stats. Double Fail. Congrats. You can now work at McDonalds. You want a QUALITY game with QUALITY graphics for $49 and FREE DLC? Witcher 2. Quit feeding this Activision/COD pig and SAVE gaming!

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30166308]IQ Test #1 = You buy MW3. Fail. IQ Test #2 = You pay EXTRA for small maps and stats. Double Fail. Congrats. You can now work at McDonalds. You want a QUALITY game with QUALITY graphics for $49 and FREE DLC? Witcher 2. Quit feeding this Activision/COD pig and SAVE gaming![/QUOTE] It's not about quality and free DLC, it's about what people want to play. If I want to play a fast-paced shooter I'm not going to say "FUCK COD, IT'S SHIT!" and play Witcher 2. Stop promoting a different video game by the way.

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;30166455]It's not about quality and free DLC, it's about what people want to play. If I want to play a fast-paced shooter I'm not going to say "FUCK COD, IT'S SHIT!" and play Witcher 2. Stop promoting a different video game by the way.[/QUOTE] So you are OK paying $60 + more $$$ for rehashed garbage? It's not even about the game... it's the principle. Every time someone buys a copy of COD (and $15 DLC), it enables developers to make rehashes and charge more and more money for it. It's not even Activision's fault.. it's CONSUMERS paying for this slop. Think about it in food terms. If McDonald's started charging $5 for a small cheeseburger and $1 for pickles on it, and you keep buying, why won't others follow suit? "I can charge $5 for a crappy cheeseburger and $1 for the pickles and MILLIONS are buying it! Why would we every make quality food when we can sell THIS?"

[quote]Rob Dyer, senior vice president of publisher relations at Sony's U.S. games division, said only a few games have the audience loyalty and size to support a subscription service like Call of Duty Elite. Mr. Dyer said he is "very confident" other publishers will follow Activision's lead.[/quote] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ[/media]

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30166703] It's not even about the game... it's the principle.[/QUOTE] What the fuck? So people should buy a game based on how well it's made rather than the level of fun? You don't even have to pay for the DLC, it's extra content that you can buy if you really want to. Just stop complaining and and use this time to play the Witcher 2, because it's obviously the best game out there and everyone should be playing it, and forget about Call of Duty because you don't like it.

This isn't surprising. Guitar Hero has pretty much run it's course, and now Bobby Kotick has realized that he now has less money lining his solid gold wallet, so now he charges for multiplayer on a slowly dying FPS. Luckily enough, I don't play multiplayer, so I couldn't care much about the bill, but seriously. Charging folks just to play multiplayer online? That's a shit move.

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;30167215]What the fuck? So people should buy a game based on how well it's made rather than the level of fun?[B] You don't even have to pay for the DLC, it's extra content that you can buy if you really want to. [/B] Just stop complaining and and use this time to play the Witcher 2, because it's obviously the best game out there and everyone should be playing it, and forget about Call of Duty because you don't like it.[/QUOTE] Most DLC for these multiplayer shooters actually makes it so that regular players can not play.

I don't know why people are raising such a stink about this. From how I understand it Elite is a subscription service to stat-tracking/map packs/other junk. You can play MW3 online for free and completely ignore this extra Elite stuff.

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;30167215]What the fuck? So people should buy a game based on how well it's made rather than the level of fun? You don't even have to pay for the DLC, it's extra content that you can buy if you really want to. Just stop complaining and and use this time to play the Witcher 2, because it's obviously the best game out there and everyone should be playing it, and forget about Call of Duty because you don't like it.[/QUOTE] Do you believe in anything or do you just blindly buy anything that is deemed "fun" regardless of the price and the content? This isn't a personal attack at all. Why do you think so many people, including myself, are so fired up about this? It's not about you, your grandma or your dog. It's about $60 rehashes, $15 DLC (and more incoming) and the death of "value" Don't attack Witcher 2 because I use it as an example. It's $49.99 -- DLC is free and it has a ton of replay value. It's the antithesis of COD...

Call of Duty is $60, the same as every Xbox game, and now other PC games are at $60. Call of Duty has replay value, which is why there are people playing it everyday online, and people replay the campaigns. The only DLC I have ever bought for Call of Duty were the three map packs for World at War, which I bought the night the came out and played with my friends from school. I bought MW2 and Black Ops, and never bought the DLC, but I still had a blast playing it. I play it because it's well-made, but the downside is that it's unoriginal. My favorite part of Call of Duty is the campaign, I love it. Multiplayer is extra for me, when I want fast-paced action and unlock guns as I go. The way I see it, I'm buying each Call of Duty for the campaign, then I get the same multiplayer that I enjoy playing, but with changed guns, a few added things, etc. I'm not in favor of paying monthly to play online for multiplayer, but if it does happen, then I lose nothing because I buy CoD for the campaign. Let developers do what they want, and let people spend their own money on what they want.

Your points are valid.. but like I said, I am speaking on the industry as a whole. COD is becoming the plague of the gaming industry. It kills innovation and has pushed the boundaries of $15 DLC... when COD maps on PC used to be free. Witcher 2 is the example I use because it is QUALITY and it is bucking the insane trends as of late...

I agree on that. I wished CoD ended at World at War, because WWII was their strength, and it would have been a nice way to end the series, but then Infinity Ward came out with another Modern Warfare (that I put a good amount of time into, but felt it lacked a lot). I most likely won't buy Modern Warfare 3, and just watch play-throughs to see what happens in the story.

And just when I feeling a bit bad about being too harsh on the COD/Consolized climate we live in.. I go to download the Dungeon Siege III demo on Xbox 360 to try it out, yeah, you have to be a gold member TO DOWNLOAD A DEMO. Kill. Me. Now.

[QUOTE=Eeshton;30151009][img]http://archive.perfectduluthday.com/beating-a-dead-horse.gif[/img] [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qFiyjwMlP0Y/S1FSOHWYSCI/AAAAAAAABWI/RGEYpkk69Jo/s400/cash-cow-783678.jpg[/img] etc[/QUOTE] Except that the horse is FAR from dead in this case. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=booster;30157701]2011 [img]http://h7.abload.de/img/bf3-7xuee.gif[/img] Call of duty should go and die in a corner now, and let Battlefield 3 take the war-fps throne.[/QUOTE] No, because then all the dumb CoD kids migrate to BF3, and DICE decides to make the game to cater towards them, and then it becomes as shit a series as CoD is. I'm glad CoD is doing so well, it's like a big annoying people filter for the rest of gaming.

[QUOTE=Dog;30153122]Seriously, I wouldn't be suprised if they released a console for $599 exclusively for Call of Duty.[/QUOTE] and it'd be built with 2004 hardware

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;30169209]I agree on that. I wished CoD ended at World at War, because WWII was their strength, and it would have been a nice way to end the series, but then Infinity Ward came out with another Modern Warfare (that I put a good amount of time into, but felt it lacked a lot). I most likely won't buy Modern Warfare 3, and just watch play-throughs to see what happens in the story.[/QUOTE] I kinda agree. World at War was good, although I really enjoyed Modern Warfare 2. Black Ops had some fun missons, but it got old quick.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;30169631]Except that the horse is FAR from dead in this case. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] No, because then all the dumb CoD kids migrate to BF3, and DICE decides to make the game to cater towards them, and then it becomes as shit a series as CoD is. I'm glad CoD is doing so well, it's like a big annoying people filter for the rest of gaming.[/QUOTE] Id doubt Dice would follow CoD's footsteps. If anything the CoD kids hate BF3 and all the other Battlefields.

[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;30169837]I kinda agree. World at War was good, although I really enjoyed Modern Warfare 2. Black Ops had some fun missons, but it got old quick.[/QUOTE] after the inexcusable lump of shit that was Black Ops I swore I would never support anything Activision again, they really do not give a single fuck about PC gamers, not even enough to playtest their games before they sell them

[QUOTE=Android phone;30169956]after the inexcusable lump of shit that was Black Ops I swore I would never support anything Activision again, they really do not give a single fuck about PC gamers, not even enough to playtest their games before they sell them[/QUOTE] Sameage, and I'm still gonna get MW3 for the right price, I'm sure of it.

What I don't get about this thread is why people discuss about graphics and gameplay, whereof the article talks about a new online service. People get your shit straight. Also this is really bad, if I pay for a game. I'll invest in all these hours of gameplay and content. I understand that MMOS are in need of upkeep for the servers, furthermore there is always tons of new content added. But with a bloody simple shooter. Common, it's just bad.

Could somebody please explain me, in rational and simple terms, what's wrong with this?.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;30170118]Could somebody please explain me, in rational and simple terms, what's wrong with this?.[/QUOTE] Activision and Blizzard Entertainement is thinking about introducing a new online service which keeps your information and gaming account of the COD series up to date. It ensures you that you can play online. Although it is not free and you have to pay a monthly fee for it. But I'm not sure if it's obligatory if you want to play online or only an extra service.

[QUOTE=junker|154;30170166]Activision and Blizzard Entertainement is thinking about introducing a new online service which keeps your information and gaming account of the COD series up to date. It ensures you that you can play online. Although it is not free and you have to pay a monthly fee for it. But I'm not sure if it's obligatory if you want to play online or only an extra service.[/QUOTE] Yeah i get that part, what's wrong with it?.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;30170185]Yeah i get that part, what's wrong with it?.[/QUOTE] If you require further explanation... there is no need to explain :)

[QUOTE=junker|154;30170037]What I don't get about this thread is why people discuss about graphics and gameplay, whereof the article talks about a new online service. People get your shit straight. Also this is really bad, if I pay for a game. I'll invest in all these hours of gameplay and content. I understand that MMOS are in need of upkeep for the servers, furthermore there is always tons of new content added. But with a bloody simple shooter. Common, it's just bad.[/QUOTE] Activision employee walking home: [img]http://stocksonwallstreet.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/rich-people1.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30170249]If you require further explanation... there is no need to explain :)[/QUOTE] I'm being serious here, i really need an explanation.

Well, people don't like giving money to moneyeating fucks. Because this service is just a simple lame excuse to milk money. If I pay for a game, like 60 bucks. Which is fairly enough, I want to play the game to the fullest without paying additional stuff.