Activision strongly considers monthly bill for portion of Multiplayer - Games

[QUOTE=junker|154;30170318]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.[/QUOTE] I absolutely agree with you, that's why i simply won't buy it. Is that all there is to it? can we leave COD alone now and move along?.

[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] and now we know that witcher fanboys are just as bad as cod fanboys

[QUOTE=Black Milano;30170185]Yeah i get that part, what's wrong with it?.[/QUOTE] from a corporate standpoint, there's nothing wrong with it - in fact, it'll probably bring them even more money than before now from a consumer's point of view, Activision is charging money for features that should've been free in the first place. There are some exclusive benefits to subscribing for the monthly fee, but as of now, it doesn't give a whole lot of info on the actual benefits, and pricing is unknown it's also very clear that they're only doing this to make more money, again, from a corporate standpoint, it's perfectly fine, but obviously nobody wants to pay $60 + extra

Well, yeah that's it. It's just always people complaining. Most of the Facepunchers promise that they won't touch the game and after a while they all have it on release date, hypocrisy.

[QUOTE=Jaehead;30170369]it's also very clear that they're only doing this to make more money, again, from a corporate standpoint, it's perfectly fine, but obviously nobody wants to pay $60 + extra[/QUOTE] That probably has something to do with the fact that selling games is a business and you want to make as much money as possible out of it?. Maybe something to do with the gigantic investments needed to produce a modern game? I really don't understand why wanting to make money is a bad thing, it's not like we'd have any gaming industry at all if it wasn't profitable... or any industry at that.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;30170276]I'm being serious here, i really need an explanation.[/QUOTE] In a nutshell, it's Activision/COD's constant "evolution" in charging you more money for less content. Look how many games in the past gave stats and maps/content for free for a much less price. Now, you'll pay for them in MW3.. if you see nothing wrong with this, then there is no need to discuss it further. I played COD on the PC when it first came out. It was a fantastic game with regular patches and content. This was pretty much the case up to COD: WAW.. since then, it's been nothing but a costly farce to the consumer... and they are gobbling it right up. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Android phone;30170364]and now we know that witcher fanboys are just as bad as cod fanboys[/QUOTE] And people who have no valid arguments continue to resort to immature and/or personal attacks. Witcher 2 is an incredible value at a lower price with DLC. It has nothing to do with being a fanboy. If you want to defend $60 games with less content, $15 maps and charged stats, more power to you. Keep feeding that pig.

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30170465]In a nutshell, it's Activision/COD's constant "evolution" in charging you more money for less content. Look how many games in the past gave stats and maps/content for free for a much less price. Now, you'll pay for them in MW3.. if you see nothing wrong with this, then there is no need to discuss it further.[/QUOTE] Read Above. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=digitalforce;30170465]In a nutshell, it's Activision/COD's constant "evolution" in charging you more money for less content.[/QUOTE] Just like airlines, supermarkets, doctors, universities, cinemas, bike shops, clothing stores and a gigantic etcetera?. Maybe that's how the market works? extracting as much money as possible out of people, something commonly known as maximization of benefits.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;30170448]That probably has something to do with the fact that selling games is a business and you want to make as much money as possible out of it?. I really don't understand why wanting to make money is a bad thing, it's not like we'd have any gaming industry at all if it wasn't profitable...[/QUOTE] this is what's debatable, because some would argue that developers make games as a form of artistic expression, while others argue that they're only in it for the money not to mention that the Call of Duty series is extremely profitable as is, and it's pretty much confirmed that they're doing this out of greed, and again, whether this is fine or not is debatable

[QUOTE=Jaehead;30170611]this is what's debatable, because some would argue that developers make games as a form of artistic expression, while others argue that they're only in it for the money.[/QUOTE] Quite an expensive (and profitable) artistic expression, mainstream game developing budgets average more than 50 million dollars nowadays, plus 150 million dollar marketing campaigns. There's little room for art in in those numbers. Gaming is the new Hollywood, everything is flat out business. But that isn't a bad thing, the most successful products are the ones that leave the consumers happy, that means there's even [b]more[/b] reasons now to make better games than before. And what if they're only in for the money? Ferrari is in only for the money too, and it's not like their cars suck, do they?, same goes for Armani, or Google.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;30170520]Read Above. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] Just like airlines, supermarkets, doctors, universities, cinemas, bike shops, clothing stores and a gigantic etcetera?. Maybe that's how the market works? extracting as much money as possible out of people, something commonly known as maximization of benefits.[/QUOTE] No.. not every publisher/developer is doing this. It could be argued but a new COD once a year is clearly maximizing profits without caring about the fanbase or the game property itself. It's like releasing a new X-Men EVERY year or a Lord of the Rings EVERY year just to maximize profits whilst throwing the actual intellectual property in the toilet... The reason why I use Witcher 2 (and get insulted for it) is because they spent 4 years making a quality game and are only charging $49.99 for it and have announced DLC will be free. You can tell they CARE about their property. Another example is Dragon Age 2. It was obviously rushed out the door to make more $$$ while sacrificing quality and care... [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Black Milano;30170731]Quite an expensive (and profitable) artistic expression, mainstream game developing budgets average more than 50 million dollars nowadays, plus 150 million dollar marketing campaigns. There's little room for art in in those numbers. Gaming is the new Hollywood, everything is flat out business. But that isn't a bad thing, the most successful products are the ones that leave the consumers happy, that means there's even [b]more[/b] reasons now to make better games than before. And what if they're only in for the money? Ferrari is in only for the money too, and it's not like their cars suck, do they?, same goes for Armani, or Google.[/QUOTE] Please... don't.. ever... include Ferrari and COD in the same comparison. WOW. :)

[QUOTE=Black Milano;30170731]Quite an expensive (and profitable) artistic expression, mainstream game developing budgets average more than 50 million dollars nowadays, plus 150 million dollar marketing campaigns. There's little room for art in in those numbers. Gaming is the new Hollywood, everything is flat out business. But that isn't a bad thing, the most successful products are the ones that leave the consumers happy, that means there's even [b]more[/b] reasons now to make better games than before. And what if they're only in for the money? Ferrari is in only for the money too, and it's not like their cars suck, do they?[/QUOTE] well, from what I can see, there's quite a bit of indy developers and even some of the big-name developers that aren't in the industry to make as much money as possible also if you want a car analogy imagine this a company sells a car, but over the years, the car has less and less features standard, and yet they still charge the same base price, and the consumer has to pay extras for features that otherwise used to be standard

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30170767]The reason why I use Witcher 2 (and get insulted for it) is because they spent 4 years making a quality game and are only charging $49.99 for it and have announced DLC will be free. You can tell they CARE about their property.[/QUOTE] That's a marketing strategy too, they're maximizing their benefits in a different, less aggressive way. They're trying to give you as much value as possible so you buy from them rather than from Kotick, they won't make nearly as much money though and that's what keeps the games coming out. This is all a like a gigantic strategy, every company is a different player, with a different strategy, but they're all after the same goal, getting dosh, tons of it. Some companies maximize value for money, some sell cheap and in volume (read, shovelware), others create behemoth-like products backed up by price discriminating features, like Activision. Don't be fool, every one of them would be more than happy to suck your wallet clean, that's what they're in for.

Better yet... you pay $9,000 for a new small car. Last years model had a CD player and power locks. This year, it's still $9,000 but know you have to pay more for the CD player, more for power locks and you actually pay a monthly fee to see how fast you are going and how much gas you have. If you want to defend the COD series and the actions of Activision, you are the type of consumer fueling the fire. I read a recent statement that fits this argument perfectly: "Until consumers demand MORE QUALITY for LESS, it's their own fault." Vote with your wallet. Quit feeding the pig.

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30170465] And people who have no valid arguments continue to resort to immature and/or personal attacks. Witcher 2 is an incredible value at a lower price with DLC. It has nothing to do with being a fanboy. If you want to defend $60 games with less content, $15 maps and charged stats, more power to you. Keep feeding that pig.[/QUOTE] You told us how glorious and cheap Witcher 2 is about three times now. Got any other games, say, something to fulfill a fast-paced shooter craving?

[QUOTE=Jaehead;30170848]a company sells a car, but over the years, the car has less and less features standard, and yet they still charge the same base price, and the consumer has to pay extras for features that otherwise used to be standard[/QUOTE] And that's exactly what they do, to some extent. Ever heard of car configuration?, 2000$ for leather seats, 3000$ for an auto box', 600$ for a stereo, etc. It's the same here, only you pay for multiplayer instead of dead cows.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;30170896] Some companies maximize value for money, some sell cheap and in volume (read, shovelware), others create behemoth-like products backed up by price discriminating features, like Activision. Don't be fool, every one of them would be more than happy to suck your wallet clean, that's what they're in for.[/QUOTE] Your right, no business is really a charity but I 100% disagree that all companies are the same. Not in movies, not in books, not in video games. I vote with my wallet and I will NOT feed the disgusting COD pig anymore. But you are free to do so. COD has reached "take a dump in a box, label it COD and it sells millions" camp. It doesn't matter how I reason, how good or CRAP the game is, people will keep buying it because it says COD on the box.

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30170910]Better yet... you pay $9,000 for a new small car. Last years model had a CD player and power locks. This year, it's still $9,000 but know you have to pay more for the CD player, more for power locks and you actually pay a monthly fee to see how fast you are going and how much gas you have. If you want to defend the COD series and the actions of Activision, you are the type of consumer fueling the fire. I read a recent statement that fits this argument perfectly: "Until consumers demand MORE QUALITY for LESS, it's their own fault." Vote with your wallet. Quit feeding the pig.[/QUOTE] Feeding the pig? I'm pretty sure everyone who buys CoD knows what to expect, and they don't complain too often.

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;30170935]You told us how glorious and cheap Witcher 2 is about three times now. Got any other games, say, something to fulfill a fast-paced shooter craving?[/QUOTE] Bad Company 2? You can get it for less than $19. Play the squad modes for more "COD" style gameplay. Also, their $15 DLC is more than just a map pack. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ninja Duck;30170951]Feeding the pig? I'm pretty sure everyone who buys CoD knows what to expect, and they don't complain too often.[/QUOTE] Exactly. And Activision laughs their way to the bank. "They paid $15 for a map pack??! LOL!! -- Let's charge for stats.. they will surely pay for it..."

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30170910]If you want to defend the COD series and the actions of Activision, you are the type of consumer fueling the fire. I read a recent statement that fits this argument perfectly: "Until consumers demand MORE QUALITY for LESS, it's their own fault." Vote with your wallet. Quit feeding the pig.[/QUOTE] And that's were you're wrong (along with a lot of people). Us consumers will always have the final word, and that is deciding whether we buy the product or not. Activision may charge whatever they want to let us play online, or split the games in as many DLCs as they like, but if we don't buy it, everything they do, everything they try, is completely useless. And guess what, i wouldn't buy one of their games even at gunpoint :colbert:.

Now BF3 has a huge chance for its mutliplayer community(Not like it hasn't before..).

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30170984]Bad Company 2? You can get it for less than $19. Play the squad modes for more "COD" style gameplay. Also, their $15 DLC is more than just a map pack.[/QUOTE] I have Bad Company 2, and it's in no way like Call of Duty; it's slower-paced, has destruction, takes time to get the hang of it (CoD is pick up and play), etc, etc... [QUOTE=digitalforce;30170984]Exactly. And Activision laughs their way to the bank. "They paid $15 for a map pack??! LOL!! -- Let's charge for stats.. they will surely pay for it..."[/QUOTE] Welcome to the real world. That's how you stay in business and make lots of money.

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30170949] I vote with my wallet and I will NOT feed the disgusting COD pig anymore. But you are free to do so.[/QUOTE] Couldn't have said it better myself. People aren't THAT stupid man, sooner or later the COD bubble will burst. Mark my words. Again, i haven't bought a Call of Duty game in years. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ninja Duck;30171060]Welcome to the real world. That's how you stay in business and make lots of money.[/QUOTE] And that's how the world works, it exists because of this 'making money' stuff.

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30170910]Better yet... you pay $9,000 for a new small car. Last years model had a CD player and power locks. This year, it's still $9,000 but know you have to pay more for the CD player, more for power locks and you actually pay a monthly fee to see how fast you are going and how much gas you have. If you want to defend the COD series and the actions of Activision, you are the type of consumer fueling the fire. I read a recent statement that fits this argument perfectly: "Until consumers demand MORE QUALITY for LESS, it's their own fault." Vote with your wallet. Quit feeding the pig.[/QUOTE] "quit feeding the pig" "quit feeding the pig" "quit feeding the pig" alright christ calm down Che Guevara but you do know that they won't just instantly stop making CoD games as soon as one person stops buying them right but I'm sure you think if we bought [b]WITCHER 2!!![/b] for [b]ONLY $40BUX!!!![/b] with [b]FREE DLC!!!!!![/b] everyone would start following suit, amirite

[QUOTE=Android phone;30171222]"quit feeding the pig" "quit feeding the pig" "quit feeding the pig" alright christ calm down Che Guevara but you do know that they won't just instantly stop making CoD games as soon as one person stops buying them right but I'm sure you think if we bought [b]WITCHER 2!!![/b] for [b]ONLY $40BUX!!!![/b] with [b]FREE DLC!!!!!![/b] everyone would start following suit, amirite[/QUOTE] calm down

[QUOTE=Jaehead;30171232]calm down[/QUOTE] I'm imitating digitalforce apparently I'm doing a good job

[QUOTE=Android phone;30171222]"quit feeding the pig" "quit feeding the pig" "quit feeding the pig" alright christ calm down Che Guevara but you do know that they won't just instantly stop making CoD games as soon as one person stops buying them right but I'm sure you think if we bought [b]WITCHER 2!!![/b] for [b]ONLY $40BUX!!!![/b] with [b]FREE DLC!!!!!![/b] everyone would start following suit, amirite[/QUOTE] And what if they keep making shit COD games? does it actually matter?. With Call of Duty concentrating all the dumb people there's actually more room and interest in good quality games, so we should see more of them in the future.

COD, at this rate, will not burst anytime soon. Look at Halo.. going on 10 years? It's in the exact same camp "Take a dump in a box, label it COD/Halo/Fast and Furious" and it sells millions. Halo ODST still sold millions and it was a steaming pile. Doesn't matter though. I am in a very small minority in this society. I bought way too many CODs and Halos before realizing "I am getting duped here." I have a friend who bought Black Ops on 360, PS3 and PC.. it's disgusting. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Black Milano;30171256]And what if they keep making shit COD games? does it actually matter?.[/QUOTE] Yes, if millions keep buying them. Why would you try to make anything original, new or full of features when COD sets the example? "Android Phone", until you have a semi-coherent argument.. please.. stop.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;30171256]And what if they keep making shit COD games? does it actually matter?.[/QUOTE] that's what I'm thinking, it doesn't matter if we stop "feeding the pig" as digitalforce so eloquently put it, they're going to milk it until it's raw and bleeding everywhere and bleeding into the milk and then axe it instantly when it starts losing profits (look at guitar hero: they'll come out with 50 different versions in a year, then fire the studio that made it when they start making less than seven figures off of it every week)

[QUOTE=Android phone;30171222]"quit feeding the pig" "quit feeding the pig" "quit feeding the pig" alright christ calm down Che Guevara but you do know that they won't just instantly stop making CoD games as soon as one person stops buying them right but I'm sure you think if we bought [b]WITCHER 2!!![/b] for [b]ONLY $40BUX!!!![/b] with [b]FREE DLC!!!!!![/b] everyone would start following suit, amirite[/QUOTE] I just remembered; the term "Feeding the pig" commonly means to put money in the piggy bank. [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=digitalforce;30171265]I have a friend who bought Black Ops on 360, PS3 and PC.. it's disgusting.[/QUOTE] That's just despicable and sickening on a whole new level! He's not your friend because he supported a game that he happens to like but you don't! "Quit feeding the pig"!!!

[QUOTE=digitalforce;30171265]COD, at this rate, will not burst anytime soon. Look at Halo.. going on 10 years? It's in the exact same camp "Take a dump in a box, label it COD/Halo/Fast and Furious" and it sells millions. Halo ODST still sold millions and it was a steaming pile. Doesn't matter though. I am in a very small minority in this society. I bought way too many CODs and Halos before realizing "I am getting duped here." I have a friend who bought Black Ops on 360, PS3 and PC.. it's disgusting.[/QUOTE] :siren: [b]bandwagon alert[/b] :siren: if you can't tell the difference between halo 3, halo ODST and halo reach you're either being willfully ignorant or you've legitimately bought into the bandwagon crap, I feel bad for you if it's the second of the two but if it's the first I'm going to have to ask you to shut your fucking whore mouth right now [QUOTE=digitalforce;30171265] "Android Phone", until you have a semi-coherent argument.. please.. stop.[/QUOTE] aww, you realize your side in the argument has no foundation so you just pretend my argument is invalid :3: [editline]31st May 2011[/editline] inb4 "you can tell the difference between the last 3 halo games? you must be a fanboy!"