Here it is, AusGamers looks at The Evil Within, and just what you can expect from grandaddy horror creator Shinji Mikami
The Evil Within Review
We chat with Blizzard's Tom Chilton on all things World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor
Talking World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor with Tom Chilton
We take the open-world of fictional Kyrat for a spin.
Far Cry 4 Open-World Hands-On Preview
We take on the Dark Lord and his minions in Monolith's epic action-adventure romp
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor Review
Post by Steve Farrelly @ 11:43am 25/11/10 | 13 Comments
We've pasted up comments in the past from Activision's outspoken CEO, Bobby Kotick, regarding his ideas to potentially put in place a subscription pay model for Call of Duty's multiplayer, but in recent months that idea has been played down, ending today with definitive comments from Acti's newly appointed CEO of publishing, Eric Hirshberg.

"Are we going to be charging for multiplayer? The answer is no," he told IndustryGamers. "The experience you have out of the box, connecting with the online community to play Call of Duty is absolutely integral to the experience and we'll never charge for that. It's not going to be something we'll attempt to monetize; it's part of the package.

"Nothing we or anyone else tries is going to work if it doesn't have tremendous value for people and add a tremendous value to the gaming experience," he added, while responding to industry analyst, Michael Pachter who was sure they [Activision] would take the subscription route. "He's probably looking at meta-trends in the world and in culture about online services and new ways things should be monetized from Netflix to cloud-based computing. So there are certainly a lot of behavioral shifts towards long-standing online relationships... But at the end of the day, all I'm trying to get across is I can unequivocally say we will never, ever charge for the multiplayer."

Sounds like this guy knows what he's on about - keep him in front of the soundbites and Kotick in his office, counting the money and Acti's image could fast change.



bobby kotickcall of dutymultiplayeronlineactivision





Latest Comments
ravn0s
Posted 11:46am 25/11/10
no fees until they bring out call of duty online.
Python
Posted 11:46am 25/11/10
Online service will be free but now you'll have to rent the game monthly for $10
Deviouz
Posted 12:02pm 25/11/10
Well if they keep bringing out CoD games yearly they are effectively got you for about $7 a month, which instead of say releasing games every 2 years with subscriptions they just do it yearly without
CSIRAC
Posted 12:08pm 25/11/10
^
what he said
scuzzy
Posted 12:52pm 25/11/10
Considering it's peer to peer nature on xbox, they sure had better not...
Trauma
Posted 01:28pm 25/11/10
Yea Rav that's exactly what I thought, no fee for MP as you know it, but 'you just wait till we show you what we've been working on, You'll beg us to let you pay for it!' Is the line of thought I have about it.
Sc00bs
Posted 01:29pm 25/11/10
everything is goin 2 b pay 2 play in the near future i predict.

Well anything that has decent servers/pings/ content updates etc
trog
Posted 02:02pm 25/11/10
Well if they keep bringing out CoD games yearly they are effectively got you for about $7 a month, which instead of say releasing games every 2 years with subscriptions they just do it yearly without
bingo
Whoop
Posted 07:20pm 25/11/10
I might pay a small subscription fee ($5 a month or something) if it meant the game was constantly updated and exploits/holes/glitches were patched up & game crashes were resolved until the end of time kind of like how valve are still updating & patching cs. But it seems Activision only care enough to patch the game so it mostly works then move on to another version & not bother fixing anything in previous versions.
FraktuRe
Posted 07:57pm 25/11/10
I like how in the black ops multiplayer menu it states 'Multiplayer, free with every copy of COD:BO', as if they're doing us some huge favour not charging us for it.
`ViPER`
Posted 08:17pm 25/11/10
But it seems Activision only care enough to patch the game so it mostly works then move on to another version & not bother fixing anything in previous versions.


Yeah thats pretty much it, and like others said, because they release a new version at least every year now and abandon the "old" game, I reckon the users getting a pretty raw deal.

I actually think it would work better if they DID charge an ongoing fee to play multiplayer, but they would have to make the multiplayer version almsot free to purchase (which they wouldnt do) and charge a reduced fee for the Single player version of the game (which they also wouldnt).

Kinda like how WoW is now, and its probably considered the most successfull online game ever.

Actually its kinda like TF2 is now, except Valve DO charge a realy low fee to purchase the game AND allow you to play it for free online AND constantly update it.

Valve just need to make a Moderm day warfare game that competes with COD.
carson
Posted 10:11pm 25/11/10
Well if they keep bringing out CoD games yearly they are effectively got you for about $7 a month, which instead of say releasing games every 2 years with subscriptions they just do it yearly without

All they need to do next is what EA did. Cut support for multiplayer after 1 year. I remember with NFS:U and some other games the multiplayer was inaccessable after a year, and you'd need to buy the most recent to enjoy some good MP.

I think someone on these forums said that COD is the Acti's EA Sports line. Which is completely true.

But it seems Activision only care enough to patch the game so it mostly works then move on to another version & not bother fixing anything in previous versions.

This is why I don't support companies that practice s*** like this. I'd rather lay down my cash for a game that I know will still have love from the dev post release. <3 Valve.
Commenting has been locked for this item.
13 Comments
Show