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.
Posted 11:46am 25/11/10
Posted 11:46am 25/11/10
Posted 12:02pm 25/11/10
Posted 12:08pm 25/11/10
what he said
Posted 12:52pm 25/11/10
Posted 01:28pm 25/11/10
Posted 01:29pm 25/11/10
Well anything that has decent servers/pings/ content updates etc
Posted 02:02pm 25/11/10
Posted 07:20pm 25/11/10
Posted 07:57pm 25/11/10
Posted 08:17pm 25/11/10
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.
Posted 10:11pm 25/11/10
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.
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.