'Call of Duty' Sets Sights on a Fee (WSJ)

[xVeinx]

'Call of Duty' Sets Sights on a Fee

By Nick Wingfield

Consumers are used to paying $60 each for videogames that run on consoles like the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Now the publisher behind the industry's biggest videogame franchise— "Call of Duty"—is about to find out whether it can get them to pay a monthly bill, too.

Read more: WSJ (Sub. required)

[Sparky]

Screw them.

[GoldenTiger]

This is disgusting (it let me read without logging in (I do subscribe to WSJ), for anyone interested).

[Frontl1ne]

Activision Blizzard Inc. plans to launch an online service called Call of Duty Elite this fall that will work with the next major edition of the game, "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3," and future installments of the hyper-realistic combat-simulation game.

It's been known for a while that Activision was looking for a subscription-based service for Call of Duty for a while now. Just didn't know how they were going to do it.

[crash5s]

I'd expect to see more of this. MMO's long ago proved people will pay to play, this will become more common.

[GoldenTiger]

I'd expect to see more of this. MMO's long ago proved people will pay to play, this will become more common.

MMO's provided consistent, dedicated servers with thousands of players connected at once, with 24/7 in-game support, constant balancing, persistent worlds, and constant content updates included in the fee, not to mention being completely different, more complex animals. Even if Activision released 5 new maps a month of decent-to-good quality, which I sincerely doubt, that's less than map makers/modders would do for free by many magnitudes in years prior. There simply is no value proposition here for end-users, just money in Activision's pockets, and lots of it.

[alfaunits]

The entire software industry is going this way, it is just that we are used to games being "MINE" (I paid for it, darn it!).
It is only a question of when we will no longer have stuff on our PCs at all, and what stuff.

[bamtan2]

RPG ninnies can and will pay for a treadmill, that is fine for them. people who actually like shooting stuff can continue playing CS or whatever.

[Hoboclese]

a lot of the features that they are bringing with this paid subscription system are some that steam already does for you.... But it may make producers support their games for longer

[demonkevy666]

The entire software industry is going this way, it is just that we are used to games being "MINE" (I paid for it, darn it!).
It is only a question of when we will no longer have stuff on our PCs at all, and what stuff.

this why I refuse to play/ usually refuse buy/play a STEAM game.

[highoctane]

You can still play online without the subscription but you won't have access to the subscriber content. Seems to be more like subscription based DLC which I don't think is that big of a deal at all.

They can expand the gaming experience further for those that love the game and are willing to subscribe for that experience, the customer gets his fix and the company makes money on subscription to provide that fix.

In an interview, Activision Chief Executive Bobby Kotick said he isn't worried about pushback from gamers about the Call of Duty Elite fee because players will still be able to compete against each other online without subscribing to the service.

[phantomferrari]

The entire software industry is going this way,

i actually think most of the industry is getting away from monthly fees/ age of conan, hellgate, and i believe apb reloaded will support free to play. the only games that will support a monthly fee for a while are WOW and EVE

the good thing about WOW or EVE is that they do quite a bit of updating to the game on a fairly regular basis. i really doubt activision would be that diligent on upgrades.

most people think micro transactions are a better idea and i could agree with that.

activision however is insane if they think they can slap a new coat of paint on a tired game and charge people a monthly fee on top of the $60 + for the game. if they try this with MW3 it WILL kill the franchise and their golden goose

[Bobsama]

a lot of the features that they are bringing with this paid subscription system are some that steam already does for you.... But it may make producers support their games for longer

I honestly don't think it will. It's a great way to hook people into the game (just look at the WoW model with expansion packs); if they pay for this premium content for 6-12 months prior to the next release, there's more incentive to jumping ship (and dropping another $60) for the new release and the continuing with the subscription. It kills the gaming community (IMHO) because you don't really have a game to play a year later. Even if they reduced the membership fees (which I would really doubt), it'd still likely kill the MP within 24 months.

A few other things: why would one want even 3 new maps a month? 1-2 maps a month (covering all play modes) would be pretty cool but the other seems like overload.

[Frontl1ne]

They can expand the gaming experience further for those that love the game and are willing to subscribe for that experience, the customer gets his fix and the company makes money on subscription to provide that fix.

More like release a half-assed incomplete gimped version of the game for full price and then charge extra for content that should've been in the game in the first place.

I'm okay with DLC if it was developed post-release and was substantial in content (ie expansion), but most of the DLC for games nowadays is stuff that should've been included in the release originally.

Bioware actually had DLC that was included on the retail discs but locked by a code that you had to purchase. Absolutely stupid.

[highoctane]

More like release a half-assed incomplete gimped version of the game for full price and then charge extra for content that should've been in the game in the first place.

I'm okay with DLC if it was developed post-release and was substantial in content (ie expansion), but most of the DLC for games nowadays is stuff that should've been included in the release originally.

Bioware actually had DLC that was included on the retail discs but locked by a code that you had to purchase. Absolutely stupid.

Well thats assuming that the game would be gimped from the start which would be a failure and would likely kill the popularity of the game from the start.

You buy a game off the shelf, you enjoy said game and want more, you either pay for dlc and expand the game piecemeal or you can use a subscription service.

To me the whole thing comes down to the pricing and quality of the content, it better be good if they want to acquire and keep subscribers.

The only game that hooked me enough overall to consider dlc was the mass effect franchise, I really enjoyed the game and story.

[lkiller123]

Battlefield for the win. Screw Call of Duty!!

[paulbagz]

this why I refuse to play/ usually refuse buy/play a STEAM game.

Why is that?

The games are still yours and they're cheaper then you will ever find on shelves in stores.

I've never seen a downside to the Steam platform imo.

-PB

[Mad Pistol]

Battlefield 3 is sounding more appealing by the second.

Good job Activision. You're now advertising reasons why we should buy a competitor's product.

[tifosi]

Well thats assuming that the game would be gimped from the start which would be a failure...

NFS Shift... DLC was nothing more than botched code fixed and charged for really... little additions if you ask me.

[WangChung]

The entire software industry is going this way, it is just that we are used to games being "MINE" (I paid for it, darn it!).
It is only a question of when we will no longer have stuff on our PCs at all, and what stuff.

You've never "owned" a game, you've only purchased a license. Said license can be revoked and they can still keep your money. Ownership of software is an illusion.

[Hornet331]

The entire software industry is going this way, it is just that we are used to games being "MINE" (I paid for it, darn it!).
It is only a question of when we will no longer have stuff on our PCs at all, and what stuff.

Even when you buy stuff in retail nowaday, its not "yours" sine of all the nice drm crap that decides if you can play it or not.

And if the activation server is shut down.. well, good thing you have the disk, but you cant play.

[Lanek]

I'd expect to see more of this. MMO's long ago proved people will pay to play, this will become more common.

Are you serious ? It's normal for MMO's, outside WOW, you pay one time the account and will be able to play it 5 -10 years without the need to buy a new game.. without pay for expansion , updating content, etc... If i take L2 as an example you get 1 - 2 expansions / years for free .. so it's normal you pay for a month fee, as you don't pay for the expensions ...

But for a FPS multiplayer ? with 3hours single players and 10maps, why will you pay for 2 new modded map 10$ / months what a joke .... It's allready too much to pay for 3 new maps ( who are mod ) with DLC ... you want to pay 10$ / months for play to CounterStrike ?

Anyway they shoot themselves in the feet if they do this ... as for MMO's, your will quickly see alternative and hacked servers running around ...

[STEvil]

hat simulator > Cash On Demand... er Call of Duty.

[Dami3n]

Who will be enough insane to pay for play CoD when you can play Battlefield for free?

[SKYMTL]

I have no issue paying a small subscription fee as long as A) the game is priced at under $10 B) the game is released with its FULL features. IE: get rid of this idiotic DLC craze that people have so thoroughly bought into. Give us a COMPLETE game from day one and I'll be happy.