COD sub-based by end of the year?

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 16 July, 2010

Pachter says so.

Activision will charge gamers to play first-person shooter behemoth Call of Duty online by the end of the year, analyst Michael Pachter has predicted.

"Unless and until the publishers come up with a business model that appropriately captures the value created by the multiplayer experience," the gaming clairvoyant told Industry Gamers, "we are destined to see a migration of game playing away from packaged goods purchases and toward multiplayer online.

"While the shift has been great for consumers, who are enjoying an unprecedented, and largely free, game experience, it has been devastating for publishers and shareholders, who are seeing sales and profits decline.

"We think that it is incumbent upon Activision, with the most popular multiplayer game, to take the first step to address monetisation of multiplayer. It is too early to tell whether that will be a monthly subscription, tournament entry fees, microtransaction fees, or a combination of all three, but we expect to see the company take some action by year-end, when Call of Duty: Black Ops launches."

Pachter's prediction will be music to Activision CEO Bobby Kotick's ears. Tim Scafer's mate said last month that if he could do one thing, he would make Call of Duty "an online subscription service" as soon as tomorrow.

"The company has the greatest experience of the Western publishers with multiplayer subscriptions, given its huge success with World of Warcraft, and we expect Activision to apply a WoW-type model to its Call of Duty franchise," Pachter continued.

"It is likely that Activision will ease the pain of consumers, and will continue to offer some form of free multiplayer, at least for a while, but we believe it is imperative that the company begin to capture some value from the huge number of hours spent – 1.75 billion hours on Xbox Live alone through mid-April, and we estimate that this figure is approaching four billion hours combined through today on Xbox Live and PSN.

"We are quick to point out that the average single player game has an expected play time of under 30 hours, suggesting that a staggering 133 million units of equivalent game play have been spent (so far) playing Call of Duty online, with Activision only seeing revenues from the original 20 million units sold, plus an estimated eight million map packs sold."

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (138) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Widge #1 2 years ago

    Go for it then. At some point something has to fuck up spectaculary to let it be known that it is not a good idea to attach a £ to everything people want to do with a bought game.

  • beastmaster #2 2 years ago

    There may well be a bazillion hours on COD at the moment. Start charging subs and there will be a reeeeaaalll big fucking drop-off!

    Don't think MS will allow it myself. Seem to remember something about Champions Online being ready for the 360 but MS not sure how to handle subscription rates and it's still not been released.

  • Thedni #3 2 years ago

    Pachter has been relatively accurate as of late so get your wallets kiddies!

  • UKLL #4 2 years ago


    I'm a huge COD addict but I'll be done with the series if this happens.

  • Shikasama #5 2 years ago

    I wish all of these moneymen would fuck off.

    Although, they are the reason PC Gaming will never die.

  • Bealsy #6 2 years ago

    *tear*

    That's the sound of everybody opening their new copy of Bad Company 2

  • richyroo #7 2 years ago

    I really hope they decide to implement this. Would be the end of the COD franchise and hopefully the start of Avtivisions downfall.
    I already pay to play on xbox live, I have paid Activision for their product, why the fuck should they get even more money?

  • iamian #8 2 years ago

    It is too early to tell whether that will be a monthly subscription, tournament entry fees, microtransaction fees, or a combination of all three

    I can imagine there'd be a fair few people that would pay to go pro...

  • LOLLERS #9 2 years ago

    "We think that it is incumbent upon Activision, with the most popular multiplayer game, to take the first step to address monetisation of multiplayer"

    A bit of sick came into my mouth

  • Alf-Life #10 2 years ago

    Interesting. I kind of agree with how much playtime players are getting out of it for "free" as far as they're concerned.

    Then again, they'd really have to keep updating weapons and maps (as Blizzard do in WOW) to justify any cost.

    However, I'd love to see them charge for it, and people just flock to Battlefield or Steam to play CS or TF2 for free.

    Have we been spoiled by all this "free" content from the likes of Valve?

  • beastmaster #11 2 years ago

    Correct me if I'm wrong but Activision have no fucking say whatsoever in subscription fees. It's down to MS and Sony.

  • Tyranix #12 2 years ago

    Bwahahahahaha.... sorry but...hahahahaha!

  • 00.00.01 #13 2 years ago

    What's next....Single Players that are do-able in 15 hours but if it takes you longer you have to pay? C'mon, sell me a title with SP and MP should include online play without additional charges.
    MAG on the PS3 is an online only title, yet Zipper doesn't moan about 'loss of revenue'.

  • Feanor #14 2 years ago

    "Tim Scafer"

    Who?

  • SHPanda #15 2 years ago

    Free to play? The amount of money I've had to put in the theoretical swear jar because of all the cheating 10 year olds on MW2... Of course that was months ago when I actually owned the game.

    Seriously though at £55 RRP for the game (not that anyone pays that) along with £10 a map pack (which you can't really play without because you'll get kicked from the game the moment it chooses a map you don't have.) They've already made £75 for the year out of each consumer (assuming there's no more map packs on the way). Then they can start again a year later when the yearly sequel is released.

    They already over charge, just not by enough to put the kids off from playing it, which is the perfect amount as that way I don't have to deal with them in other games.

  • Widge #16 2 years ago

    I find it similar to when I was briefly looking into an iPhone 4. Scanned through O2's tariff. Pick something you'd want to do with an internet phone, browse the net, oh thats capped, pay £5 a month to get an "ok" allowance. Ok how about tethering, oh you have to pay for that too.

    Its simple from a business perspective, you have a product, you identify what people want from it and how to make them pay for it. You look at the revenue that comes in from it and all looks rosy. Although when it starts to encroach on customer experience, thats when the balance is wrong. Ok, its fair enough having to pay a bit extra for net on the phone, thats how things are going. Having to pay to plug it into your computer to use the net, thats ridiculous. Apply to COD, having to pay for the game, pay for maps, pay for online play on your platform ... fine, having to pay ongoing from then onwards for a multiplayer portion of a game. Thats pretty poor. I think MMO's can get away with it with all the maintenance costs and ongoing development, but I can see Acti just shitting the game out and saying "pay us now please" and thats it.

    I think this is a particular crime from the 360 perspective, I'm not a big believer of having to pay to go online, but having to do it twice, thats just woeful. And that isn't anything I'm pointing at MS, thats at Acti.

  • andywilkie35 #17 2 years ago

    This only bothers me in that its unfair on people who enjoy online multiplayer

    I can't be fucked with playing nerds online so doesn't really affect me.

  • Iain815 #18 2 years ago

    I still play MW2, but this will draw the line for me.

    I unlocked the fucking multi-player content the moment I shelled out £40 for the game.

  • FlashMagic #19 2 years ago

    Be a sad day for the COD franchise should those get their way with subs :(

  • Xboxfanuk #20 2 years ago

    I just wrote this in forums a few hours ago. This would be a sub instead of buying expansions most likely...or else no one will buy it.

  • Skywise #21 2 years ago

    Wow Kotich and Pachter really seem to want to strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs. Good for them :D
    Edited by Skywise at 16/07/10 @ 13:21

  • I\'mListening #22 2 years ago

    Not everyone plays COD online , you know. Me included. Got 1000G on both MW1 and MW2 and never needed to play the multiplayer on the second at all. I probably never will.

  • AphoticCosmos #23 2 years ago

    It's like they just want to roll over and let Halo: Reach fuck COD in the ass.

    Not that I have a problem with that.

  • dfua #24 2 years ago

    If you go subscription your game really has to be worth it. There are just too many competitors out there who won't charge.

    I'm not sure how it would work with their annual releases either. You don't see World of Warcraft 2, 3, 4 , 5, you just get expansions to the content (at least I think thats how it works).

    Thinking about it, a large part of the COD audience are too young to have credit cards!

  • Macdory #25 2 years ago

    They may be planning to charge a monthly sub, but they won't be charging me ... fuck that !

  • jonharrispro #26 2 years ago

    FFS- i pay for my phone line to enable me to get the internet (dont even have an actual phone on it), I pay my ISP to get online, I pay Microsoft to use Xbox Live, I pay £40 for the game +£10 a pop DLC. they still want more. Go fuck yourselves!! If this happens i wont be getting black ops.

  • GamerG #27 2 years ago

    if only there were some non subscription based FPS's out there......

  • Centrifugal #28 2 years ago

    If they do this then the retail game should be free. And there should be basic multiplayer for those who don't want to play, with all the rest as a premium service.

    *Goes back to playing epic single player free RPG Dragon Age: Origins*

  • spiritsnake #29 2 years ago

    pachter can go push a COD disc up his a**!
    online fee for playing means me and everyone i know playing online will move on to another game.

  • IronGiant #30 2 years ago

    That means I won't be buying it on day one and will wait to see what their plans really are.

  • dfua #31 2 years ago

    They could make it pay per play, say £1.50 per hour, that way if the sp game is 30 hours (going off Pachter's number) they get their £45. If the game is 5 hours like MW they get £7.50, those who lose their life to the mp side can subsidise the rest of us who don't care about it. It'd at least make them think more about the sp campaign.
    Edited by dfua at 16/07/10 @ 13:38

  • MrChuckles #32 2 years ago

    I expect negative comments here, but.... If you buy one game for £40 and get 30 hours of play out of it, and buy another £40 game and get 1000 hours out of it, would you really mind paying a bit more for it over time?

    What about £1 a month?

    From a publisher/developer point of view it makes sense, and as someone else mentions would allow them to put that money into releasing extra map packs free and more updates...

  • Paulie_P #33 2 years ago

    COD dead by the end of the year?

  • justice-ste #34 2 years ago

    lul

  • Kamata #35 2 years ago

    "We think that it is incumbent upon Activision, with the most popular multiplayer game, to take the first step to address monetisation of multiplayer"

    Twats...this is where corporate exec's with no clue start slapping price tags on everything and killing communities and franchises in one hit.

    It's popular because the team you let slip through your fingers, created a damn good game and guess what...we PAID for the fu***** game, so quit while your ahead. I really hope the Gaming community act in unison and DO NOT buy into this bullshit, if they do the model will be replicated and will become the norm. We already pay for GOLD for the ability to play online.

    Where does this end? MWAHHHHHHHHHRFFFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG (screams) (lays claymore)
    Edited by Kamata at 16/07/10 @ 13:42

  • Anthony_UK #36 2 years ago

    They really do have to bleed everything dry don't they!

    If they had a constant stream of new maps, weapons and genuine features that are worth paying for then to a point fair enough.

    If they want to charge for standard multiplayer, COD will die a horrible death :(

    The greed and total lack of understanding of your average gamer by Activision is pretty frightening!

  • thomastantrum #37 2 years ago

    sub-based trivial pursuit?

  • MaxiSleep #38 2 years ago

    "We are quick to point out that the average single player game has an expected play time of under 30 hours, suggesting that a staggering 133 million units of equivalent game play have been spent (so far) playing Call of Duty online, with Activision only seeing revenues from the original 20 million units sold, plus an estimated eight million map packs sold."

    What a moronic twat,

    He makes the usual miskake of equating the demand for a free service with the demand for a paid one.

    Secondly he ignores the fact that the content (i.e. playing against others) is actually provided by the public.

    Finally I also note that pretty much every paid for pvp only focussed MMO has failed misrebly, and certainly would not come close to even a small fraction of these numbers

  • CrispyLog #39 2 years ago

    Give over. He says it as if COD 6 is the first multiplayer game. Go back ten years and the internet was only used for porn and counter-strike and they were both free!

  • X3Entente #40 2 years ago

    im not a finanical analyst or a qualified stock broker, but i know enough about the economy and free markets to know that you cant raise prices or charge for purely artificial services like this, ie the "service" of not having your multiplayer mode being held hostage, since they don have any operating costs for online. The only exception is is someone made a truely one of a kind game, that was hypothetically the only game like that so there was no other game to turn to. However since the fps market especailly is overcrowded with so many games that follow the same formula. However the worst case scenario could be that activision, ea, ubiscum etc decide to form a cartel to fix prices, so they dont have to compete on price and can sqeeze out everyone else. And since they are in the entertainment inustry, they could proably get round anti cartel laws, because thats the only way i can see this evil scheme working

  • LastAngryMan #41 2 years ago

    "While the shift has been great for consumers, who are enjoying an unprecedented, and largely free, game experience, it has been devastating for publishers and shareholders, who are seeing sales and profits decline."

    What? How dare I make use of the content I paid for! As has been pointed out, the experience isn't free. You've paid for the boxed game, your own internet connection AND Xbox Live which coveres the hosting costs I assume. There's no cost to activision when I play online so why are they seeing "sales and profits decline"?? Is he suggesting that because people are playing online they're not buying new games anymore?

  • Dolly #42 2 years ago

    I would happily pay.


    Someone to shoot this guy.

  • local_celebrity #43 2 years ago

    I know M$ are evil scumbags, but I think this would be too much even for them. It would cut Xbox Live in half and create an apartheid system between the haves and have-nots. They'd also find themselves in the indefensible position of charging people TWO sets of subscription fees to play ONE game online. They've poured billions into developing this platform. Why would they jeopardise its future for Activision's shareholders?

  • Paulie_P #44 2 years ago

    All those movie-makers must be raging when people buy a dvd and watch it multiple times. I know I've watched terminator 2 about 50 times but I only bought the DVD once, maybe they should introduce a sub.

  • Beano #45 2 years ago

    "I can imagine there'd be a fair few people that would pay to go pro... "

    Usually the money flow does in the other direction when someone goes pro.

  • 00.00.01 #46 2 years ago

    @MrChuckles 16/07/10 @ 13
    A: MW2 - RRP £+50. SP= 7 hrs, MP=unlimited
    B: BF:BC2 - RRP £+40. SP=12 hrs, MP=unlimited
    C: COD:BO-RRP £+55. SP= 5 hrs, MP=£5 p.m. (will contain maps seen in MW2 and MW)
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Also, how long will Acti support online, once the new COD is ready support for existing online games will drop. Acti is moving the COD series away from SP and focusses on MP only, it used to be the other way around.
    As someone else pointed out out, subscription-based business model requires a lot more non-stop input from the dev/publ. as well as many years of support. I don't see Acti providing that.

  • trooperdx3117 #47 2 years ago

    "publishers and shareholders, who are seeing sales and profits decline."
    Oh of course we all forgot about the poor publishers whose game sold about a bazillion copies, come on guys how can they afford their golden cutlery to match their golden kitchen if we don't pay up

  • BritishBlue1 #48 2 years ago

    "While the shift has been great for consumers, who are enjoying an unprecedented, and largely free, game experience, it has been devastating for publishers and shareholders, who are seeing sales and profits decline."

    My heart bleeds, it really does. Would someone please think of the shareholders!

    Free online multiplayer doesn't seem to have stymied the games industry for about the last 15 frickin' years, the only difference between then and now is greed. The trouble with subscription on CoD is that its unprecedented success is thanks to casual and semi-hardcore gamers, bring in subscriptions and you'll most likely lose them. Especially on platforms like XBL where they already have to pay subs to Microsoft.

  • Vortex808 #49 2 years ago

    I can't believe this, despite it being no real surprise after Kotick's previous haverings. Did they not make enough money from the map packs and games themselves as a major franchise selling the amount of units already estimated? Activision and CoD can GTF if they implement this.

    Multiplayer is part of the original product purchased and i fail to see why it should be paid for beyond the cost of getting the game in the first instance. Especially when XBL is usually hosted peer to peer and not on servers, except for stat logging- where is activisions additional cost incurred there?

    If you want to bring in microtransaction for other *balanced* weapons/items then good luck to you, but i won't be having any of that nonsense, or paying an additional fee for multiplayer.

  • RobTheBuilder #50 2 years ago

    So this means they are going to start adding back in a full single player mode rather than an 8hour jaunt for the £40-50 we pay upfront then?

    Multiplayer has been part of games for decades, just because it is more popular does not mean you have the right to start making us pay by the hour for it.

  • kristo #51 2 years ago

    Even better, they have very little upkeep costs for multiplayer cause remember, no dedicated servers, it's all run on someones 360/pc/ps3. I guess some authentication servers and whatnot but not that much.

    So, we buy the game, pay for our net connection, pay for XBL (or not if on PC), use our own hardware to host the games and they still think they deserve a piece of that action?

    Let me spell this out. No money when there is no added value. Once the game is bought, cept for auth and stats etc etc, their (Activision) involvment to me looks very small. So they can fuck off thinking they can squeeze some money out of that.

    No value, no money, simple.

    So, BFBC2 anyone?

  • Mkwone #52 2 years ago

    My biggest worry is that if they do this and it works.

    How many people would pay for a monthly sub, even if the gamer buys just 1 month it's extra money activision are getting.

  • mr_shoe_uk #53 2 years ago

    "We are quick to point out that the average single player game has an expected play time of under 30 hours, suggesting that a staggering 133 million units of equivalent game play have been spent (so far) playing Call of Duty online, with Activision only seeing revenues from the original 20 million units sold, plus an estimated eight million map packs sold."

    Is this the most bullshit measurement of the day?

  • Distributor #54 2 years ago

    If you like this, fine. If you dont, vote with your wallets. Sorted and case closed. No need to keep yapping about it.

  • BoffBoff #55 2 years ago

    Genuinely speechless.

  • Sunyavadin #56 2 years ago

    FINALLY CoD will come to an end!
    ABOUT FUCKING TIME.

  • Corben_Dallas #57 2 years ago

    LOL U had the biggest selling game by a big margin, sacked whole devlopment team cause u didnt want to pay them their agreed & future bonuses and now u want to charge ppl a sub for the privilage of playing a game they shelled out €60 plus bought yur over prived DLC, WHICH HAD NO ACHIEVEMENTS OR BONUS MODES (CODE FOR 4 of the maps ALREADY EXISTED FFS
    Edited by Corben_Dallas at 16/07/10 @ 14:23

  • Fab4 #58 2 years ago

    Monetise this you fucking cunts...*raises two extended middle fingers*

  • geeza2020 #59 2 years ago

    I ACTUALLY FELT PHYSICALLY FUCKING SICK READING THIS, FUCK OFF AND DIE KOTICK

  • jack_klugman #60 2 years ago

    Microtransactions.

  • SilverInfinity #61 2 years ago

    Epic Fail!

    Read all about it -> New Call of Duty game fails to meet the shareholders sales figures after gamers are turned off for paying a £1 a minute to play online, one shareholder was quoted as saying:

    "We want gamers to understand that our gold-plated toilet paper doesn't pay for itself and that we need every single penny"
    Edited by SilverInfinity at 16/07/10 @ 14:39

  • frugtkompot #62 2 years ago

    Haha. Seriously? I love this quote:

    ""While the shift has been great for consumers, who are enjoying an unprecedented, and largely free, game experience, it has been devastating for publishers and shareholders, who are seeing sales and profits decline."

    How much money was it that COD:MW2 made?

    I call bullshit. Get outta here!

  • EraSerX #63 2 years ago

    Eurogamer should stop writing articles based on Michael Pachter's predictions

  • nickal47 #64 2 years ago

    Can someone remind me what I pay an xbox live subscription for?

  • Dizzy #65 2 years ago

    Halo Reach. Nuff said.

  • Cronan #66 2 years ago

    Monthly subs? Bad fucking idea.
    Tournament entry fees? No a bad idea, might keep some of the harder-core COD loonies away.
    Microtransations? yeah, right.

    Hey, I've got an amazing idea, how about continuing to produce value for money content for the game over its online life-time, instead of trying to screw us out of every penny?

  • RobTheBuilder #67 2 years ago

    Looks like Activision are trying to fund the legal pay-outs to Infinity Ward by biting, shooting, and insulting the hand that feeds them.

  • waggy79 #68 2 years ago

    I for one won't be buying another COD game if this happens. The single player is too short and I don't enjoy the online enough to warrant it.

  • Velios #69 2 years ago

    I'd happily pay up to £15 a month to play COD online.

  • Cronan #70 2 years ago

    @Velious: You've got a the germ of a good idea there. Let's all pretend that we'd be happy to pay the subs, then just go and play Halo: Reach or one of the dozen free-to-play FPSs that will spring up instead. Then we all get to laugh as the greedy twunts scramble to save their businesses.

    Ah, dreams.
    Edited by Cronan at 16/07/10 @ 14:50

  • BabyJesus #71 2 years ago

    Fuck this idea, if they do it, stupid fucks will pay for it and every other publisher will follow suit.

  • cairbre1977 #72 2 years ago

    Well my bet is that the call of duty series is going to be in real decline with the next edition cant wait to see Koticks fat face. And it is total bullshit to say that the companies arent getting anything for the multiplayer part of their game what about the bloody price of the game!

    Gamers are paying microsoft to play online with live so go ask them for some cash and leave us alone. Gamers are not a bottomless pit of money to be gouged and every opportunity. If they do charge it makes a mockery of a gold subcription on xbox and I for one will go back to Counter Strike and Valve products.

    Anyway didnt Actishit make a load of cash off COD:MW2 so what exactly are they complaining about. How dare people get value from their products seems to be their line of argument!

    Why not just allow people play the single player part of the game once and if they want to play again they have to pay more cos that seems to be next logical step in their bullshit theory.

    Oh and Kotick is a total prick

    End Friday afternoon rant.
    Edited by cairbre1977 at 16/07/10 @ 15:05

  • Cronan #73 2 years ago

    @BabyJesus: Most of the people on COD: MW2 will have to wait 5-10 years before they're old enough to get a credit card, how many parents will shell out monthly subs?

  • Tio #74 2 years ago

    I will definitely get neg marks

    However they will do it, from a business standpoint I can see the appeal to them , now they need to make it appeal to us.

    Maybe 1.99 per month to play on their servers with no lag and new maps every month and new weapons and outfits etc , events for easter/Christmas/new year etc , but also offer a totally free service like the current system where play is on someones system.


    Guys ...be honest ..how many 'free' MMO's are out there yet WoW still have 12 mill plus subscribers.


    "I already pay for xbox subs, I aint paying more" ...I understand that statement but you will pay more we all do in the end.

    I paid for a TV, then I paid more for SKY , then I paid more for movies and sports , then I paid more for HD, then I paid more for PPV events .

    As someone said already if you want something you will pay for it, and I believe ( I dont want to myself) people WILL pay for the prestige of playing on the main servers and tournaments and maps etc.

  • SilverInfinity #75 2 years ago

    Maybe they could take the money from the bonuses they owe the ex-IW staff ;) I'm sure that must have built up a bit of interest by now

  • cairbre1977 #76 2 years ago

    @Tio Its not true that if they make it you will pay for it. I dont play sub-based games at all because I have enough monthly bills as it is. I have Sky but refuse to pay them more for HD because I think they should be giving it out for free and they will eventually. Agreed I pay extra for sky plus but that is my line in the sand.......

  • Paulie_P #77 2 years ago

    @Mkwone

    I agree. The same thing happened with the map packs, a few people I know were disgusted then they started convincing themselves that they'd better get it anyway:
    "my friends will all buy them"
    "its not that much when you think about it"
    "its the only game I play online"

    I'm worried the same thing will happen when the subscriptions roll in.

  • bad09 #78 2 years ago

    I bought the first overpriced map pack, won't buy the 2nd and hell would freeze over before I pay a sub for COD or any other game for that matter.

    If they do charge a sub I choose an alternative plain and simple.

  • Dylbot #79 2 years ago

    I really hope they don't do this. Not because I give anything amounting to a shit about CoD, but because I want to keep those fuckers that do out of my Battlefield games.

  • metalangel #80 2 years ago

    @I'mListening: you don't count Special Ops as multiplayer, because you'd never get 1000G unless you played with someone else.

  • evilrobot #81 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 22:12:53 08-05-2012

  • Lotos8ter #82 2 years ago

    So I paid £40 for MW2 at launch and I had my xbox LIVE gold subs paid up and I have to pay my ISP for the broadband. So how is my experience of playing MW2 "largely free" ????
    I traded MW2 when the map packs came out and I swear I won't buy the next one. Activision make millions out of Call of Duty and they want even more. Its just pure greed, greed greed. Fuck them all.

    (EDIT and why the hell have Bungie signed up to these greed merchants.)
    Edited by Lotos8ter at 16/07/10 @ 15:24

  • GooseUK #83 2 years ago

    Haha, It's not like CoD offers the same online content of TF2 is it really?

    I think i paid like £10 or something for TF2 and it is constantly being updated - valve treat people so nice i almost feel bad lol

    Subscriptions can fuck right the shit off

  • carlitoswagon #84 2 years ago

    Half the brats who play this shite don't pay the bills and won't pay for it themselves. Acti are probably betting the parents will meet the costs.

    If there is any migration away from mw2 I hope they stay the fuck away from BC2 and let the decent folk get on with it.

    Bobby can charge per bullet for all I care.


  • darkphoenix #85 2 years ago

    greedy focking basterds, not happy with the zillions earned in game sales, now they are keen on preying on the very essence of gaming: the fun.
    really, the world is upside down, people will have to start standing against these greed monsters.
    this is not progress, civilization has been made hostage of these capitalist bloodsuckers.
    personally, I couldn't care less about CoD, since I dislike such garbage, but I feel sorry for the millions who have fun with it.

  • Acrid #86 2 years ago

    Yay! Go for it Activision!

    This will no doubt cripple you and we can all have a good laugh.

    You cunts.

  • mastaban213 #87 2 years ago

    We already pay for Call of Duty by the month. Xbox Live is not a free service. If they tried to implement a pay by the month service on xbox, microsoft would probably shut them out anyway. But we pay for the original game, which is 60 dollars when it comes out and 50 a bit later, plus the 2 map packs so far, which are 15 dollars each. How the hell are they bitching about not making money?

  • MrRandom #88 2 years ago

    If only I was standing next to him... with a wet fish in my hand...

  • RobTheBuilder #89 2 years ago

    Is this the same Activision that just earned over $380m profit in Q1 2010?
    Clearly they aren't being rewarded for their efforts. Here, have my house as well...

    My left arm for some DLC? Why certainly...

  • TurboBailey #90 2 years ago

    Wasn't one of the 7 deadly sins "GREED" ??

    Because this stinks of it.

    Activision need to be taken down a peg or too. Get some perspective you corporate c*nts!!

    //hates big multinational companies.


  • Fur_Cough #91 2 years ago

    "People are having too much fun. They should pay. And pay again."

    Pure Greed. I actually think £40 for XBL is M$ greed.

    BUT don't underestimate the power of lure. A free online version which is tantilisingly cut down versus "just" £5 a month for the full version will sucker people in.

    ...or the power of stupidity. Look at the number of people who spunk £30 or £40 a month on a phone just to get one that's a bit more flash than their mates....or £50 a month for Sky Sports (a highly effective mechnanism to take from the poor and give to the rich). And I'm only just getting warmed up.

    Absolutley no chance of me getting suckered. Fuck right off.

  • geeza2020 #92 2 years ago

    It does seem like the hardcore gamers (me and all you lot posting on games sites) are now just completely ignored. We made this fucking industry and now its shitting all over us and theres nothing we can do about it. If this level of greed and complete disregard for the consumer continues I may just give up on games all together. I know I'm whining like a little bitch, and the companies at the top don't owe me anything, and thats why I'm not going to say "I'm boycotting this game/that game" I'm just saying i've had enough of being fed shit sandwiches by multinational corporations in every facet of life, and the one area of my life that they havent touched until recent years was gaming. Now the gaming industry itself seems to be all about greed, at the expense of all else including innovation, originalitity and most importantly fun. Sometimes i think its time for me to find a new hobby, I'm just too old for this shit now.

    /goes back to playing Mario Galaxy and sobbing
    Edited by geeza2020 at 16/07/10 @ 16:42

  • cw- #93 2 years ago

    since they don have any operating costs for online.
    Yes, they do.

  • geeza2020 #94 2 years ago

    err, minimal, minimal fucking costs in comparison the millions of dollars in PROFIT they made last quarter. Its just more greedy cunts laughing at all the poor consumers.

  • Byzanite #95 2 years ago

    profitsssssssssss!!
    It will die like every other product or service that overcharges. Its hardly a long term business model to attract new consumers when you can buy similar products at a much more reasonable cost.
    They obviously have their heads up their own asses where they are convinced the sun shines.

  • The_Bloody_Kettle #96 2 years ago

    I'm sorry mate, but MW2 didn't even have dedicated servers. Therefore online play was substandard. So you and your fee can fuck right off!

  • cw- #97 2 years ago

    err, minimal, minimal fucking costs in comparison the millions of dollars in PROFIT they made last quarter. Its just more greedy cunts laughing at all the poor consumers.

    Oh, I don't agree with having to pay any sub for an FPS. I was merely pointing out the fact that they do have operating costs for online, when that user appears to be under the impression that online doesnt cost activision anything.

  • Fab4 #98 2 years ago

    Running a matchmaking server, even for the amount of players MW2 had, is buttons compared to what they were making from sales.

  • berryl227 #99 2 years ago

    Thing that's suprising about this whole thing is the whole bloody reason MW2 sold in the first place was it's online aspect not the frankly wonky single player. Therefore the £55 covered this game for it's online life. Take this away and who will buy the game?

    Also they have introduced a sub system of sorts with the map packs which although universally hated have been a massive financial success. You would have thought they would have been grateful but no they keep pushing to see how far this can be milked. Good luck to them I however will not be buying!

  • CHACK #100 2 years ago

    aaaaaaaaand they can Fuck off - it was great until you fucked it Kotick, it not too dissimilarto the experience of the last man in the queue at a Whorehouse.

    great if you got in first for the pleasure of it but everythings fucked now.

  • URBAN__MANC #101 2 years ago

    Won't pay it, and I'll also boycott all their future games ... simple as that.

  • sneetch #102 2 years ago

    Some people are acting like this is a done deal by Activision, it's not, it's just an analysts predictions. The idea that people will need to pay more because they're playing multiplayer games online for "free" is insane I grant you but that's just it: this is just the insane ramblings of an analyst.

    "Activision will charge gamers to play first-person shooter behemoth Call of Duty online by the end of the year, analyst Michael Pachter has predicted."

    Let's douse the torches and put away the pitchforks for now. If they attempt to charge a subscription for online gaming then it had better provide an awesome reason for that subscription. If they don't then there'll be plenty of other games offering a similar experience for "free".

  • Stratix #103 2 years ago

    I will never play a CoD like this. There are plenty of alternatives.

  • SniperMadMAX #104 2 years ago

    bye bye activision well done for killing yourself

  • Climhazzard #105 2 years ago

    Well that would mean i never play COD again, or even buy the game. Screw you Activision.

    I'll stick with Halo for online play, always been superior anyway.
    Edited by Climhazzard at 16/07/10 @ 19:26

  • eisenhorn666 #106 2 years ago

    Monetise this you fucking cunts...*raises two extended middle fingers*

    fucking laughed my arse off reading this

  • polaris70 #107 2 years ago

    This is an April fool isn't it?
    /checks calender

  • zibzob #108 2 years ago

    The fact people actually bought that overhyped game en masse shows there's a wealth of people lacking enough perspective to buy anything you throw at them. So I'm not suprised at all.
    Edited by zibzob at 16/07/10 @ 20:55

  • Emmit_Assassin #109 2 years ago

    Seeing profits decline?!!!!!! FUCK OFF YOU MONEY GRABBING WANKERS!

  • androidave #110 2 years ago

    This is never going to work, people would just go to something like BFBC or MOH instead.. COD is ok, but its not as good as they seem to think it is o_O

  • TheNinkyNonk #111 2 years ago

    Unless I'm sorely mistaken, Xbox Live games are arranged via MS's servers and are hosted locally amongst players? Whilst I get they might want to charge PS3 and PC owners for the priveledge of hammering thier servers, how will this sit with MS?

  • mowenspiel #112 2 years ago

    The latest in a long line of outrageous suggestions by Activision, then... You pay what you 'owe' the publisher, developer etc when you buy the game, where all parties should simply be pleased that its game's fans enjoy it so much; what gives them the right to take more money from them? Pachter's needlessly making additional sub charges seem acceptable.

    Fallout 3 took me over 100 hours to fully complete, perhaps I should throw Bethesda a tenner for all they 'missed out on'.

  • Nephirion #113 2 years ago

    Pay to play? the game doesn't even have proper fucking cheat protection or servers :S

  • thepiedpiper #114 2 years ago

    i agree with whoever said that the biggest danger is that the consumer will accept this and the precedent it will set

  • atomised #115 2 years ago

    pfff bye bye any games that do this in my world

  • Futaba #116 2 years ago

    Fuck off, Activision.

  • man.the.king #117 2 years ago

    EG headline THIS year: "COD sub-based by end of the year?"

    EG headline NEXT year: "COD series finished?"

  • Avaloner #118 2 years ago

    While being charged for something which has traditionally been free might be shocking at first I think I have come to understand why Activision, and all the other publishers who will follow suit eventually, would drive towards such a change. Typically a game would give the average gamer 9 hours play time. An RPG would drive that number up to 30 hours. With the advent of these multiplayer centric games that number has risen close to the 100 hour mark (a hardcore gamer would surpass that drastically). While up to a few years ago the gamer would get about 1-3 hour for every 5 € spent on the game nowadays the same gamer could easily get 10+ hours. Combine this with the fact that games cost considerably more to make and they become cheaper relatively faster due to over saturation of the market and you can see why the situation is becoming unacceptable to publishers.

  • gohda #119 2 years ago

    lol I thought of the map before I read the article

  • Mr_Fiddler #120 2 years ago

    I thought they already were monitising the multiplayer in the form of map packs? Some of the most expensive map packs too I might add.

  • Milkman1 #121 2 years ago

    @Avaloner: Average game takes 9 hours to complete? lol, that is simply not true. And average player play COD 100 hours. Get out of here.

  • trubadman #122 2 years ago

    What and so do they expect families with 3/4 COD players to all take out individiual subscriptions. lol. I think the current system is good enough, isn't enough that COD is released yearly with an RRP of £55! They really are trying to squeeze money out of gamers and I can see this decreasing their sales.. Obviously this also mr pachter speaking so whether any of this actuay happens is yet to be seen

  • roundhed #123 2 years ago

    If you're English (as I am) you haven't got a fucking hope in hell in any match with other Europeans involved. If they're French, Italian, Spanish, or Dutch they're a second or two ahead of you minimum. Obviously you will be beaten by better players, but you are mostly beaten by lag. Three bars is the new four. Activision don't give a flying fuck about the online experience, they certainly aren't monitoring it to any degree. How long is the rock glitch in fuel going to persist for instance? And can anyone tell me why they disabled the party system on 360? Now I am forced to listen to the illiterate retards telling me I 'fuck my mom' and other intellectual diatribe on a constant basis. I'm all for a bit of banter but repetition of the same tired insults by immature pricks just bores me to tears. When MW2 works it is a great game. But it hardly ever does. Rant complete.

  • roundhed #124 2 years ago

    Oh, and to get back to the thread..No I won't be paying to experience more of the same.

  • darth_paul #125 2 years ago

    just because people play the game online for "free" (well, its not free, you do have to pay XBLA and Broadband, plus the price of the game), doesnt mean people want to pay a subscription for COD.
    In theory Bobby Kotic may feel hes right, but in practice i think hell end up killing COD. Its not WOW after all
    plus, the games dont even have dedicated servers, so what are you paying for, anyway??? In WOW; you have dedicated servers, the developer regularly has quests, the community is way stronger than teh one that plays COD (the majority of COD players are young and inmature)... as soon as a subscription is implemented, the franchise will die off

    just implement something like "PROJECT 10 DOLLAR", and give up, Bobby. Thats the best you can do to get an extra dollar
    Edited by darth_paul at 17/07/10 @ 15:44

  • WizenWolfBain #126 2 years ago

    I already pay for a Live subscription. Therefore i wont be purchasing the next COD game if this analyst is correct. If i pay for a game, i expect to be able to play the game both online and offline without some rubbish subscription service and separate sign in screen. So what if i get 100+ hours from a game? I have paid over the odds for it anyway.

    Dedicated servers would be nice. But EA manages that for free (although granted their servers appear to be a bit shitty sometimes).

    These developers of successful franchises make a fucking mint with every game they churn out. I hope Activision implodes under the poor management from this ass hole.

  • IIIvirusIII #127 2 years ago

    LOL do this and see 10million plus people turn Cod off for good . what a bunch of idiots.

  • reinhart_menken #128 2 years ago

    Whoever was pushing this idea should just be shot for being a greedy bastard.

    Next they should sell online rental books that charge you by the time you read.
    Edited by reinhart_menken at 18/07/10 @ 00:56

  • clockworkzombie #129 2 years ago

    If they want to introduce a subscription fee then there will have to be dedicated servers too, otherwise I shall not give them any of my money.

  • xTakk #130 2 years ago

    already gone so much off the COD franchise now and this just sealed it's fate for me.

  • Tuffty #131 2 years ago

    It'd be a joke if MW2's online service was subscription based. They haven't given it enough support and done very little to add to the game other than maps. You can forget about continual upgrades to the game if this was put in place cause what would be the point if another game is released at the end of the year anyway?

  • Collymilad #132 2 years ago

    Anyone who even considers paying a sub for an FPS should be shot immediately.

    Sadly i bet there will be a hell of a lot, since CoD fans have shown they are stupid. Look at the way the £10.99 map packs are selling.

    Anyone who even remotely advocates or defends the "monitisation" of multiplayer is really, really stupid. Why exactly should people pay a sub just because they happen to get more playtime out of a game? It's not like CoD took any more effort to make than games that people play for less time, the fact that players are happy to play the game for hundreds of hours isn't the point. Charing a sub just because people are getting more than they think they should out of the game for £40 is just pure greed plain and simple.

    I find it absolutely unbelievable that there are actually people defending this idea in these comments. Statements like "if you get 15 hours from 1 game and 100 from another, why wouldn't you be willing to pay a bit more?"

    How about because the devs get paid for creating the framework of a game and the content that works within that framework, they are paid for their time. Just because one game happens to have more replayability than another doesn't entitle them to anymore money. If a 15 hour game takes 2 years to make and so does the 100 hour game, why exactly are they entitled to more money?

    The sooner Activision collapse the better, they are a cancer in the games industry.
    Edited by Collymilad at 18/07/10 @ 15:41

  • itsfuzzy #133 2 years ago

    That Pachter guy sounds like an Activision schill.

    If you go and read the entire article at Industry Gamers you can see they are blaming the rise of multiplayer for a 15% drop in sales in June and also the 4 month decline in game sales. Have none of these muppets come to the conclusion that it might have something to do with a global recession/depression and that millions of people have lost their jobs? And maybe a rise in piracy of sofware on the back of that.
    Edited by itsfuzzy at 18/07/10 @ 15:57

  • zubnut #134 2 years ago

    Just go for it Nobby, while I watch your company's franchise slowly bleed out.
    It's a crap game on multiplayer anyway with the ass-screamingly shitty snap-to aiming and the retarded 12yr olds with their asinine "smacktalk".
    You can keep it Nobby. No sale here.

  • JBlokeUK #135 2 years ago

    MW2 meet ebay, ebay meet MW2.
    Edited by JBlokeUK at 19/07/10 @ 02:56

  • Fab4 #136 2 years ago

    CoD = Cash on Demand

  • AusFreelancer #137 2 years ago

    I like MW2, I also love FIFA. I'm sure FIFA has more online players than COD.

    FIFA also has free online & tounaments (interactive world cup). If EA can make money off their multiplayer with no subs than Craptivision can.

    I think they are forgetting there a plenty of other FPS out there some better than MW2, and that Respawn will be there to snatch their user base. Good luck Activision, if this comes true, you'll lose this casual gamer. And there's a hell of alot more of us, than the hardcore.

  • misinformed #138 2 years ago

    "I expect negative comments here, but.... If you buy one game for £40 and get 30 hours of play out of it, and buy another £40 game and get 1000 hours out of it, would you really mind paying a bit more for it over time?

    What about £1 a month? "

    Hardly the same when your running around the same bit of content for a thousand hours. Its still the same amount of work thats been put into that.

    Now if they guaranteed a thousand hour single player game, with new and different stuff along the way as you progress thats different.

    If activision wants some more cash why dont they do what every other firm on the earh does and diversify a bit, bugger off to the oil industry. Oh wait thats not looking so hot recently.
    Edited by misinformed at 20/07/10 @ 16:01