Activision to "monetise" COD online

By Ellie Gibson Published 16 November, 2009

"There is demand from gamers to pay."

Activision exec Tom Tippl has said there are plans to charge Call of Duty fans for online features in future.

"It's definitely an aspiration that we see potential in, particularly as we look at different business models to monetise the online gameplay," Tippl said during a business conference (as overheard by IGN). "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," he continued.

"I think it's been mutually beneficial, and you should expect us to test and ultimately launch additional online monetisation models of some of some of our biggest franchises like Call of Duty."

But isn't Tippl worried COD fans will object to having to cough up more money? Not a bit: "Our gamers are telling us there's lots of services and innovation they would like to see that they're not getting yet," he said.

"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."

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (104) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • jerrymanu #1 2 years ago

    Don't like the sound of this too much. I can't think of anything worse than developing an uneven arena based on have's and have not's.

    DLC in the shape of maps and non game effecting elements like costumes - okay, but if this goes the way of micro transactions for weapon upgrades and / or load out kit then were on the cusp of a very sad day.

    Oh and COD LOL !
    Edited by 3 at 16/11/09 @ 08:27

  • Grom #2 2 years ago

    Yeah, the main thing I'm thinking when I'm playing games online is "How can I pay MORE for this experience! I feel like I'm getting something for nothing here! If only someone would monetize the revenue transactions to satisfy my aspirational demand!"

  • Shakey_Jake33 #3 2 years ago

    I'm not convinced that you can shoehorn the typical MMO system (where people accept the fact that servers have to be maintained, GMs and admins need to be hired etc.) into an FPS, especially when they've already moved the burden of hosting servers onto the gamer.

    People choose to pay for XBox Live because it is a single payment that grants them access to online play for all games. It would be setting a dangerous precident if they choose to implement additional payments on top of this. Plus is would undermine the value of XBox Live, if gamers have to pay for a Live subscription fee for the privilage of paying even more.

  • Steroyd #4 2 years ago

    Well I am shocked I tell you, S.H.O.C.K.E.D.

  • bad09 #5 2 years ago

    Are Acti seriously looking to be the most hated company in the industry? It certainly looks that way to me. I'd like to say "Fuck right off", or "it'll never work" or "Gamers won't stand for such milking"....

    ....but the sheep showed us last week Acti can do what they want and you all still bend over. Paid for COD online WILL happen and you all will fall over yourselves to throw your money at them.

  • mcmonkeyplc #6 2 years ago

    Well let me be the first in here to say F.O.A.D

  • makememoo #7 2 years ago

    Blizzard offer non-core-gameplay changing things like combat pets and race/faction changes. You get the feeling that the CoD guys would be more interested in introducing a paid for arms race.

    "Picked up Silenced M4A Carbine. Swipe credit card now to activate this gun..."
    Edited by 1 at 16/11/09 @ 08:32

  • ObiChrisKenobi #8 2 years ago

    Expect a plastic replica gun to be shipped out as a new controller...

  • Scimarad #9 2 years ago

    "People choose to pay for XBox Live because it is a single payment that grants them access to online play for all games."

    People pay for Xbox Live because they don't have much of choice. Anyway, this sound like a remarkably bad move...

  • jellyhead #10 2 years ago

    Are Activision delusional, did they ask their own PR department these questions or are most gamers morons that want to pay more for less? I can't decide.

  • vx-chemical #11 2 years ago

    This would be one sale lost for me, i already payed for the game i dont want to play more, unless its map packs, but forget about making me pay monthly for a fps game unless its in a persistant world.

  • Quint2020 #12 2 years ago

    lol.

  • tobsen #13 2 years ago

    Actually I think Activision/IW are seriously overestimating the patience (or lack of intelligence) of their customers, and I expect BFBC 2 to take a good bite out of the COD fanbase, permanently. The latter game also looks like it's shaping up to be really great, unlike the shallow cookie cutter stuff that is MW2.

  • Emmit_Assassin #14 2 years ago

    So, are they talking pc, or 360/ps3? S they are going to want £54.99 for the game (I know no one will pay it, but its what they're expecting) , another £30 a year to MS for Live, then more money for multiplayer online? Fuck off.
    This is yet another way of squeezing as much money as they can out of us. When did it all change? A few years ago, no one cared how much things cost or how much they charged. Now its all about seeing how far they can push us.
    In times where everyone is looking to cut down on luxury items, they are looking into charging more just for a few extra services?
    COD is fine as it is, I don't want the new shit if its just going to fleece me.

  • DDevil #15 2 years ago

    Obligatory Penny Arcade comic from 2007

  • OllyJ #16 2 years ago

    So basically you just go and play Rainbow 6 instead.

  • Avaloner #17 2 years ago

    Well Activision are conveniently forgetting than in games such as WoW you get loads of regular and significant updates as well as a persistent online world. I think if they offer regular new maps, items, tweaks and host servers themselves then yes, they do have a point for charging (a reasonable fee) to those willing to pay. But they should forget also having paid for DLC and no dedicated servers. Anyways I think that it will be a hard sell, even for a franchise like COD. I, for one, will not be buying into any of this.

  • RobotRocker #18 2 years ago

    Are Activision delusional, did they ask their own PR department these questions or are most gamers morons that want to pay more for less?

    1) Yes

    2) Yes and the PR department is spineless anyway

    3) By god, yes.

  • GrumpyLlama #19 2 years ago

    I'm really enjoying this game, but would I have paid more than £26 for it ? No. Would I pay to play it online? No. Activision had better hope that I am in the minority but as the ressesion continues I have a feeling I may not be alone.

  • Buztafen #20 2 years ago

    Ive never 'demanded' to pay for anything?

    "Here, have this game for free!"

    "No! I demand you take £50 from me!"

  • Frosty840 #21 2 years ago

    Honestly, about a week ago I was getting ready to drop a couple of hundred quid on Activision products for Christmas. Now I'm not. There's some real-world losses for you fuckers to take into account, Acti. Just sayin'.

  • KDR_11k #22 2 years ago

    Expect a plastic replica gun to be shipped out as a new controller...

    A remote-controlled butt plug would be more appropriate for this situation.

  • gallow #23 2 years ago

    So are they going to charge to add back in the lean function?

  • gribb #24 2 years ago

    We aren't paying for dedicated servers

  • Postumo #25 2 years ago

    Yes!!!!! I want to pay more!!! i have shitloads of money and i'm anxious to spend it to enhance my COD game experience!!!

    Bring it on Activision! my money is waiting for you!

    PD: please activision i would pay for a bow and some arrows for stealth killing in COD. 400 ms points or 5 euros... please.

  • Pastici #26 2 years ago

    Go on, do it Acti. I want to see what happens.

  • clockworkzombie #27 2 years ago

    I guess that explains the loss of dedicated servers for the windows crowd.

    You want sub 50 ping you best be paying up, boy.

  • DjSolid_AGR #28 2 years ago

    The more I think of it, the more bad this sounds.

    OK, lets make a franchise out of Call Of Duty, lets criple the pc gaming scene since it was not any good to us for the last 20 years or so, lets make a service for CoD where microtransactions and micropayments are the main thing and then lets charge people for buying our products. Yep, that is the right move.

    And SUUUUURE, I get emails everyday that say "Hello mr.Activision Board Manager, I am Kostas and I would LOVE to give you more money so I can have more content for my FPS, regardles of the stupid AI in single player and the server problems in multi. And OFCOURSE I would pay money to you so you can make an online service just like Blizzard, which took them about 10 years to perfect and cost them millions of dollars. But I cannot help but thinking, back them, at a time where Diablo and StarCraft ruled PC gaming, did I pay them extra money for them to do that? Let me check on my Visa history and get back to you..."

    I mean, come on, I live in Greece where there is no official XBOX Live service, and they want me to pay them more money so they can offer me stuff that they should have made for the core game in the first place?

    Not clever man, not clever...

  • Lunatic4ever #29 2 years ago

    never heard such a pile of shit...

    there never is a DEMAND TO PAY!

    THERE IS A DEMAND for content that shoudlve been IN THE RETAIL VERSION.

    activision is really starting to piss me off. i mean ,yeah i bought it and i like it. i ignore the missing parts and enjoy what is there but if they really make use of a payment-system ill flip a bird and they can fuck off...

  • systems #30 2 years ago

    Didn't EA already threaten this with BF: Bad Company last year? I seem to remember they wanted to charge a small amount per gun but people with the "Gold Edition" got them all. And pretty much everyone complained so the guns were all normal unlockables in the end.

    They can balls. They've had my cash, I've paid my Live fee. That's your lot. But release some more Spec Ops missions please. Preferably involving vehicles and missiles.

  • DoR #31 2 years ago

    Yea, just what I wanted after spending £55 on the game... /sarcasm

  • Spekingur #32 2 years ago

    It's going to be micro-transactions where you pay for features. Such as moving forward and shooting.
    And leaning. Getting access to console. Getting access to dedicated servers. Choose what kind of clothes you have on your player. Save grandma from the devil. Etc.

  • smelly #33 2 years ago

    "There is demand from gamers to pay."


    Suckers

  • darkmorgado #34 2 years ago

    Yeah because the £100m + per month they are raking in from WoW subscriptions ALONE isn't enough.

    Seriously, they can't say for one second that they NEED to charge for all this. They probably just want to use the cash to make hand-rolled cigars out of twenty-quid notes.

    I for one hope that this all ends up biting them in the ass. Any figures yet on how many copies DJ Hero has sold?

  • tobsen #35 2 years ago

    Bobby Kotick supposedly said in a presentation that one of his most important measures is to rid the upper company levels of veteran gamers and bring in execs from unrelated industries instead, to get more focus on pure profit. Well, you probably won't be surprised that "Activision exec Tom Tippl" used to be the Head of Investor Relations and Shareholder Services at Procter & Gamble...

  • KillerMonkey #36 2 years ago

    I ALSO DEMAND TO PAY FOR STUFF!

  • penhalion #37 2 years ago

    Like all greedy corporations, they eventually find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. In this case it's obvious that no-one playing COD is willing to pay for online services. This will not work on 360 or PSN so they have to be talking about PC. It now starts to make sense why they killed the dedicated servers. After all that was where people could set up their own custom matches, loadouts etc. etc. for free.

  • jellyhead #38 2 years ago

    because it can never be linked to enough...
    Welcome to the future ;__;

  • Redeye #39 2 years ago

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Activision will never, EVER, see another penny of my money.

    Monetise whatever the fuck you want, morons - I sure as hell won't be putting anything into your coffers.

  • Shadders #40 2 years ago

    Activision - The videogames industry's pirates since 1979.

  • 3william56 #41 2 years ago

    Hello 1p per bullet.
    Bang! Ka-ching!
    Bang! Ka-ching!

    Can't wait to see who sponsors the airport scene.

  • jerrymanu #42 2 years ago

    MW2 is the first COD game I've bought but if this does become reality I'll not be purchasing again. My main fear is, if this proves to be viable because the Plebes enjoy being fisted by Mr Activision then, other publishers will follow suit.

    Personally one of the reasons I chose a PS3 over the Xbox was the 'one off' nature of the whole deal, ie: pay for console, pay for game, enjoy. Running costs via subscription and even DLC, to a certain extent, are of zero interest and IMO take the piss.

  • el_pollo_diablo #43 2 years ago

    Futureproofing?
    Unlikely.
    Corporate greed
    Kills
    All
    Cravings
    To
    Incorprorate
    Vision
    Into
    Strategy.
    Investors
    Only value
    Notes.

  • Crovax20 #44 2 years ago

    And so the age of milking has begun

  • Hantheman #45 2 years ago

    My God. Bioware I can put up with micro-payments. They do mega huge RPGs.

    Activision? No. fuck off you money grabbing cocks.

  • jimbo118 #46 2 years ago

    +1 for Grom's post, 2nd post in the article. WTF are they thinking ''gamers actually want to pay us more money kthx''. Pfft

  • skillian #47 2 years ago

    Maybe console players can boycott along with us next time.

    Jooooiiinn uuuusss.

  • felastica #48 2 years ago

    Good old Bobby Kotick. Gamers are too used to paying for something and getting it - lets find ways to sell them something, then make them pay more to use it.

  • el_pollo_diablo #49 2 years ago

    @skillian:

    Which boycott? This one? http://tinyurl.com/yep62fl

    :p
    Edited by 2 at 16/11/09 @ 14:56

  • beastmaster #50 2 years ago

    Activision will do this, I'm sure. I think they'll even try and hike the price up again for MW3 in 2 years time.

    For all those Activision haters, at least DJ Hero bombed big time as will the new Tony Hawks. Probabaly.

  • matrim83 #51 2 years ago

    Not really surprised. This was the logical next step after the PC version got gimped.

    Sell DLC to PC users. Ease them into micro transactions like the console guys. Then sometime when MW3 launches push this through.

    I am so glad I dont like CoD MP and never bought MW2.

  • senso-ji #52 2 years ago

    From a practical point of view, how will this work? I thought xbox live was a closed system, so wouldn't it be hard for Acti to implement their own pay-for-play system on top of the existing xbox live servers? If MS allow it then they'd surely want a big cut of the revenue generated to facilitate the changes.

  • Zomoniac #53 2 years ago

    From a practical point of view, how will this work? I thought xbox live was a closed system, so wouldn't it be hard for Acti to implement their own pay-for-play system on top of the existing xbox live servers? If MS allow it then they'd surely want a big cut of the revenue generated to facilitate the changes.

    Offer each mode as a piece of paid-for DLC as per normal but which auto-expires after a month? Wouldn't have thought it would be hard to put something into MW2 that registers the first time the game is booted up after the DLC is installed, sets a timestamp locally, and disables itself after a period of time, which resets upon each purchase?

  • RobTheBuilder #54 2 years ago

    Activision really don't seem to like their customers...

  • gjgjg #55 2 years ago

    free game plus optional aftercharges = acceptable

    55 beans for game + optional aftercharges = FAIL

  • solidSnake04 #56 2 years ago

    as if the rip off they charge wasn't enough. Pricks

  • Quint2020 #57 2 years ago

    I love that people moan and moan about Activision's money grabbing antics especially when it comes to the CoD series and yet everyone still goes out and buys it.

  • matrim83 #58 2 years ago

    @lord

    That would be an interesting (if debatable argument) if MW 2 hadnt sold a bazillion copies. Here is a game that uses the same engine as the previous game, adds very little new to gameplay, has a very short SP campaign and was made in a little less than 2 years.

    Its the very definition of a quick and dirty cash in. Low investment with huge returns.

    Yes there are games where the development costs must be huge (Alan Wake off the top of my head) but I seriously doubt the CoD franchise was ever in danger of having a large development budget. Which is what makes this greedy.

    Not a comment on the quality of the game, just talking about the financial aspect.

  • Bravestinsane #59 2 years ago

    You charge i don't pay for the game in the first place simple as =/

  • skillian #60 2 years ago

    @ lord: so the only solution is aftermarket microtransactions.

    I don't agree. MW2 has no micro-transactions and has has just taken more money on its launch day than any other entertainment product in history. Sure, not everyone can pull that off, but it clearly shows after-sales payments are by no means necessary to make a huge profits.

    The trouble is huge profits aren't enough. Every game has to make more than the last (every big business is all about growth, all the time), so in that sense I do agree that microtranscactions and subscritpions are inevitable.

  • bad09 #61 2 years ago

    @ Quint2020

    I can only +1 on the karma so I'll put it here. +1,000,000!

  • Nath_monn #62 2 years ago

    Sadly I'm one of those cod fan bois that you all seem to hate around here, but even I think this is taking it too far and wouldn't pay for online play. I'm enjoying mw2, not enough to have an additional charge tho, and feel I could return to cod4 at anytime, the only reason I'm playing is cuz my friends are. In honesty I got more enjoyment from mw1!!

  • matrim83 #63 2 years ago

    @lord I wouldnt say there are an awful lot of improvements. There are some places where its better but you have to remember that Treyarch did some work on the Engine for WaW as well and its not just IW who transitioned the engine from MW1 to MW2.

    I know there is no way to be sure but I would bet good money that the development costs for MW 2 were significantly less than any other comparative AAA title.

  • Zomoniac #64 2 years ago

    put simply if you demand high technology, you're going to have to pay for it.

    I could understand if you were talking about some little indie dev forced into this or facing bankruptcy. But we're talking about a game that is a sequel to a two year old game, based on an engine dating back to the mid 90s, with about five hours worth of content, that sold 4 million copies in one day. It's far from the most advanced game in the history of the universe (it's shorter and uglier than Uncharted 2 and gets revenue from 3 platforms instead of one to boot), will sell in excess of 15 million EASILY, and will probably be the most profitable non-bundled game in the history of gaming (depending on the margin on the Wii Fit balance board hardware). Dev costs can't have been that high, there's sod all content and most of the complicated foundations were finished already. This isn't about covering rising costs due to technological advances, this is about profiteering, don't try kid yourself there is anything more to it than that.

  • beckyh #65 2 years ago

    How to Milk a Cash Cow: Part 4

  • brider #66 2 years ago

    I'l be laughing at you guys when my SAS guy ride off into the sunsent on my war wolf with my m4 carbine and my mace of paid for justice+5

    and it only cost me 500 quid ..cheap!

  • Zomoniac #67 2 years ago

    but Activision Blizzard are the only ones making profits...

    What's your point? I don't recall suggesting otherwise. I'm not blaming IW directly for anything. Ultimately they are paid to take orders from the dicks in suits running Activision. They're probably not that keen on getting endless stick for being forced to give public statements about things that if they're half-decent people they probably don't agree with in the first place, but what choice do they have? Here's hoping that all the talent at IW gets sick of it and jumps ship sooner rather than later.

  • beckyh #68 2 years ago

    Dear Activision, I don't mind paying for extra levels/maps as long as it is not evident they have been pulled from the main game to make money. But I have never and will never pay for a gun, an outfit or anything else. I have never purchased avatar items and I will never buy a game that requires a monthly fee. Monetise Call of Duty and I will never buy that again either. Lots of nevers, but I stand by my principles.
    You have the bare-faced cheek to up the RRP of your very short game in the first place and now you want to squeeze us out of more cash? Go sit on my nail-bitten-finger.

  • InfiniteFury #69 2 years ago

    This is what happens when people buy horse armour.

  • Meho #70 2 years ago

    Oh, I wrote an article about it last Friday. Shameful stuff:

    http://tap-repeated ly.com/?p=4257

  • Bys0n #71 2 years ago

    Oh dear...

    "If we are the ones bending over, surely you should be paying us!"

    How is it that when an everyday person rips someone off its a scam but when a company does its a business model? The only plus side I can see to this is that if they are charging for patches and updates we might actually get some, i wouldn't be surprised if it became a weekly thing, you never know after a year they might even get to a standard where one could justify the original retail cost?

    I could sit here and list a dozen of games which on release didn't even work and at least 30 or 40 more which were of such a low standard with bugs, glitches and poor scripting (graphical or otherwise) that I actually cringe when I think of the money I have spent and you want more, for what? Its rare we get something original anyway, more often than not its the same game in a different box under a different name with the usual extortionate price tag and its ridiculous when a mod team of volunteers and enthusiasts can take the same engine and make a far better game with less bugs, more features and for free! You release a game Mr Tippl which is original and retails complete and without issues and I will consider paying you for additional content.

    ....

  • ps3owner #72 2 years ago

    well I guess it's time for a new hobby. if this is the future of gaming it will be an expensive time sink.

  • tancredo #73 2 years ago

    Option 1: Bring out a game with single player campaign of 12 hrs, with local coop missions built in. Then sell the online multiplayer via download at a separate price. That way they would charge full price for the game and then a mimimum charge again for the multi and all add-ons.

    Option 2: Release a 100% multiplayer game at a lower price, (similar to what was tried with the game Shadowrun). Charge for all add-ons and maps or a small anual subscription fee.

    Personally, if any of these are to happen, I would prefer option 1.
    Edited by 2 at 16/11/09 @ 12:08

  • ebony69 #74 2 years ago

    Makes perfect sense just so long as there is an ongoing cost there should be an ongoing revenue stream. However there has to be some service that justifies the cost and thus the revenue. Surely the backend servers, tech and support of Live is all built in to the £50 a year we pay (and I have no issue with that, you get what you pay for) - so what in addition would you get?

    I vote in favour if the service justifies it. If its just to run the servers and we already pay MS for that then no vote.
    Edited by 1 at 16/11/09 @ 12:49

  • sneetch #75 2 years ago

    "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."

    No. They may want it but I'm sure they won't demand to pay for it.

    Jesus Christ, everyone thinks they're a Jedi these days: say some group of people want something and then allege that the group of people said they want it then it's the truth because no-one can prove otherwise.

    @lord
    so the only solution is aftermarket microtransactions.

    put simply if you demand high technology, you're going to have to pay for it.

    Hmmm... in that case I don't demand high-technology, I demand good games but not high-technology ones. :)

    If the costs of developing games to this technical level mean that I'm going to be nickle and dimed after paying my €50 for a game then I choose not to buy it and I dare say I'm not the only one. I imagine that people will opt out of those games altogether or you end up with a situation where half the people playing online don't have the feature or service.

    Imagine, for example, that the first DLC they release for MW2 (edit: on PC) is a dedicated server pack. Now, (ignoring the shitstorm that would occur over that) a lot will buy it, but a lot more won't so the end result will be that half the players (for the sake of argument) will have this theoretical dedicated server pack the other half won't and your player base will effectively be split in two.

    I don't mind paying for DLC if it's good value. However, I'm not paying for someone to keep track of my stats online, for example.
    Edited by 1 at 16/11/09 @ 12:54

  • shikz #76 2 years ago

    fkin money grabbing assholes can piss off if they think everyones gonna pay more money in top of the LIVE SUB as well

  • makeamazing #77 2 years ago

    Perhaps they can use the money they make to make a better single player experience, as its total tripe at the moment :(

  • Kremlik Verified Co-Founder, Crash To Desktop #78 2 years ago

    Whats going to happen is that Activision have seen BF:Heroes and are basically going to do CoD:Heroes - it's not going to work

  • DUFFKING #79 2 years ago

    Why would I want to pay more money than I already have done to play a thoroughly mediocre online FPS?

  • skillian #80 2 years ago

    Why would I want to pay more money than I already have done to play a thoroughly mediocre online FPS?

    Presumably you wouldn't, but all those other people that think it is the best game ever made might. They will be quite happy to dump you as a customer if the numbers are right.

  • blanka #81 2 years ago

    In short, if it happens I for one will NOT be jumping onto this band wagon. The market has plenty of shooters than can easily take it place. I see EA capitalising on this if goes horribly one which I magine it would do andI pray it does. Coff Battlefield anyone from EA DICE ?
    Edited by 1 at 16/11/09 @ 13:36

  • Paulie_P #82 2 years ago

    I will not buy any Activision product again.

  • Mkwone #83 2 years ago

    But isn't Tippl worried COD fans will object to having to cough up more money? Not a bit: "Our gamers are telling us there's lots of services and innovation they would like to see that they're not getting yet,"

    Yes there's a lot we want, it doesn't mean we expect/will to pay extra for it.

  • Silvervein #84 2 years ago

    Out of curiosity...I won't question the number of mw2 copies sold, however, I'd like to know how many people will keep the game and how many will trade it in shortly after they finished playing.
    Number of copies sold soon after game release is an indication, but only of the intensity of advertisement campaign.
    Quality of the game is usually better gauged by amount of game copies circulating in second hand market.

    So, more to the point, they might try to spin those scrooge mcduck tales about gamers begging them to pay acti right now, but how much grounding in reality do they really have? If the game is just overadvertised modern warfare 1.5, not many people will think about playing it after hype dies down, much less forking in any cash for whatever extras acti wants to come up with.

    PS.
    Which is even more valid for older titles like cod that, to my knowledge, have some sort of pc community that can supply people for free with modifications to base gameplay, without the need to pay anything to activision or anyone else.
    Or will activision efforts focus on console market that seems to be more willing to pay for those things, since they have no choice and already pay fees like xbox live access?
    Edited by 1 at 16/11/09 @ 15:08

  • Sunyavadin #85 2 years ago

    This just in: Activision announce DEDICATED SERVERS for future CoD games at the low, low cost of 9.99 a month!
    Gamers rush to buy the next CoD, applauding the new features they're introducing!

  • hardtech #86 2 years ago

    Each and every week Activision give me a brand new reason to continue to boycott them. Thank you Activision, my money remains safe for something worthwhile

  • Sunyavadin #87 2 years ago

    From a practical point of view, how will this work? I thought xbox live was a closed system, so wouldn't it be hard for Acti to implement their own pay-for-play system on top of the existing xbox live servers? If MS allow it then they'd surely want a big cut of the revenue generated to facilitate the changes.

    The same way it's worked for Phantasy Star and FFXI from day one - Live Gold is not required to play, and you pay for the game subscription independently.

  • BritishBlue1 #88 2 years ago

    Sod them, I'll just switch to the battlefield:Bad Company series instead. Why are they acting like there aren't alternatives to the bullshit they're trying to shovel?
    I'll admit, I bought MW2 on day of release and so far I've enjoyed it, especially Spec Ops, but I'm not willing to pay a bloody subscription for the full features. Personally, I think they'll be hard pressed to push this onto console gamers, it works on MMORPG's but shooters? There may be some mugs who will pay but I think the majority will pass...

  • Tio #89 2 years ago

    Ok there are a lot of rightly unhappy customers here ...HOWEVER..

    If Activision said that there was a persistent world server where one could jump in and out and play with their characters, something like Planetside , and if you didnt want to play that version you had everything the same as it is now , but if you did want to play on servers that could hold thousands of players in a real/persistent world , you could at a cost of say ...£10 for six months , I would be interested.

    I miss Planetside....

  • ISmoke #90 2 years ago

    Awesome. I love you too, Activision.

  • makeamazing #91 2 years ago

    I suspect there will be alot of trade-ins just in time for AC2 :)

  • Lamb #92 2 years ago

    I wonder if they realize that too much product especially crap product in DLC will make companies go broke like Atari in the early eighties. I've stayed away from COD series since the third game. Nothing too thrilling about it vs Medal of Honor or Golden Eye.

  • melch #93 2 years ago

    this really is going to far, and suggesting that gamers are demanding to pay more is total toss.

    i would of been interested to see how many sales there would of been on day 1 if the supermarkets hadnt stepped in and reduced the price and everyone had been forced to pay the £54.99 activision felt the game deserved.

    I pay for LIVE because i feel its worth it as a service. i wouldnt pay to play something id already paid for in the shop.

    the boycott of this game was obviously an epic fail but i hope if this does happen (and probably will) that activision get fucked.

  • PlugMonkey #94 2 years ago

    Christ. I think Bobby Kotick's copy of The History of Electronic Arts is missing the last two chapters...

  • Lamb #95 2 years ago

    I want the industry to go back to when they made good games like the original Mech Warrior, Duke Nukem, Rampage.

  • Climhazzard #96 2 years ago

    Theres no way im paying more to play CoD, i love the game but id just stick to halo, rainbow six and probably ghost recon.

  • wobblyman #97 2 years ago

    They can fuck right off. I will just stop playing games that Activision bring out as they are obviously out to exploit every single penny out of people that play their games. A fucking disgrace I say. I've been gaming for over 25 years now and know a shit load of gamers and not one of them want to pay a single penny more after they purchase a game. Get real and take your heads ot of your arses Activision. I was about to go and buy MW 2 for my PC (Already have it on PS3) but this has changed my mind.
    Edited by 1 at 16/11/09 @ 18:26

  • Gormless #98 2 years ago

    How about good old Tom Tippl giving us all something back given he is probably on a wage most of us can only dream of rather than sounding like a right old money grabber thats forgot what it is like to live in the real world?

    COD players wont mind? My fucking arse Tommy Boy, you can shove COD right up your brown star if you want more than the initial asking price for it.

  • IronGiant #99 2 years ago

    If they do start charging to play online then this will be the last Call Of Duty game i'll be buying.

  • itsfuzzy #100 2 years ago

    Activisions arrogance with the COD franchise is getting scary.
    Ripping the heart out of the PC release, over charging for MW2 just because they could.
    Now this BS> Yeah all gamers are just dying to pay a monthly subscription to play COD online.
    Where will it end.

  • AphoticCosmos #101 2 years ago

    Activision really can't get any more stupid.

    Now I've gone and said it . . .

  • Paulie_P #102 2 years ago

    They can suck on my big hairy beanbag.

  • BarcaAzul #103 2 years ago

    Ive never bought a pre owned game, but MW2 could be my first!!

    Activision need to comment quickly by exactly what they mean by this and when they plan to start charging for online and for what exactly, eg MW2 or CoD7.

    As 55 quid is a lot for a 10 hour game, like MW, but made up for it by having online. If online is extra, then I wont be buying it new or at all.

    It could also create a record for the single biggest pre owned title in the bin as well if they are not careful.

    I however blame all the people that forked out 8 quid for 4 maps. In doing so, this showed that gamers are willing to pay more for add ons. I didn’t buy any out of principle and it being a rip off. If they do go down a subscription route, im sure many will buy into it, the same as they did the map packs!! Mugs!

  • icematt12 #104 2 years ago

    I dont think this will be for a game from a store, maybe we will see some sort of downloadable game that incorparates this system. I wonder if they saw Battlefield Heroes and thought "We should get a piece of that".