Videos
(121)Screenshots
(93)Cheats and Walkthroughs
(112)
Videos
(120)Screenshots
(93)Cheats and Walkthroughs
(119)
Videos
(120)Screenshots
(88)Cheats and Walkthroughs
(116)
Videos
(112)Screenshots
(62)Cheats and Walkthroughs
(144)
Videos
(110)Screenshots
(62)Cheats and Walkthroughs
(138)
Videos
(56)Screenshots
(34)Cheats and Walkthroughs
(5)
Videos
(110)Screenshots
(62)Cheats and Walkthroughs
Videos
(39)Screenshots
Cheats and Walkthroughs
Videos
(38)Screenshots
(16)Cheats and Walkthroughs
A research note released today suggests that stock-holders won't be happy until Activision implements an additional fee for players who wish to participate in any CoD multiplayer modes. According to an analyst, keeping Call of Duty's multiplayer free is "a betrayal of shareholder trust."
Michael Pachter, a Wedbush analyst, suggested that Activision's decision to not charge players an additional fee for multiplayer is "a serious strategic error." Pachter went on to say, "We firmly believe that until the publishers address monetisation of multiplayer, game sales will continue to be challenged by the publishers' altruistic decision to provide significantly more entertainment value per hour than ever in history."
This is a response to Activision Publishing CEO Eric Hirshberg's promise that Activision would never charge for "out of the box" CoD multiplayer. However, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said he would charge Call of Duty players a subscription service "tomorrow" if he had his way.
The Call of Duty franchise is known for its multiplayer. CoD: Modern Warfare 2 and CoD: Black Ops are among the most popular played games on Xbox Live and the PlayStation Network. Would you continue to play if you had to pay a subscription fee? Pay-to-play didn't work out so well for APB: All Points Bulletin, could this be beginning of CoD's downfall?
Source: CVG
Comments are Closed
Comments
Displaying 221–240 of 249
1191011121313
Chipsthe1st
Who the hell are these stock-holders in question? And why are they doing what they're doing? It's simple, really: buy stocks for when the game(s) come out, wait around a month for maximum efficiency, and drop out. They're dumb for wanting subscription fees just because THEY'RE keeping hope for more to come out of Activision, which would be fees for multiplayer.
And the Blizzard CEO should stick to World of Warcrap as his means of a good paycheck. Sure, he's/they're with Activision and all, but butt out, man. WE'RE the ones playing the game, not you.
Point being, as soon as anything is slapped on to CoD, I'll be using Gamestop's deals effectively for....BC2 or Uncharted. Just Saying.
boiske
hell no i would not pay a fee to play CoD online multilayer i would actually sell that game in a heart beat and would boycott all games that did that!!!! I am outraged that a company would put profits in front of consumers wants. POWER TO GAMERS !! DOWN WITH STOCKHOLDERS!!!
TheBRADLeyB
Tell ya what, if they imposed an additional fee to play online I simply wouldn't buy the game.
The Singleplayer is not worth 60 bucks... Almost NO CoD Single player is by today's standards. Black Ops actually annoys me with it's storyline. The guy has no information about who is interrogating him, swears he didn't break in CUBA and then proceeds to tell these unknown people everything about what he did.
Now I could see Call of Duty creating a Multiplayer Game ONLY version of Call of Duty.
You take Call of Duty Modern Warefare, put the Multiplayer on a disc and charge 30 bucks for the game with a code for your first 3 months free or 2 months free. From there on out it's 4.99 a month except for February which will be the 'Free Month' to honor black people since the N Word is the most commonly used word on Call of Duty Multiplayer Voice Chat (right behind would be the F word for gays)
That way 15 bucks can go to cover the cost of CD and Micro$oft publishing/disc manufacturing and 15 goes to cover 2 months of a subscription to make it worth the money to buy the disc.
I mean, I tell you right now, CoD Multiplayer for the 360 is not worth 60 Bucks initially followed by 5 bucks a month after that.
For a Mass Effect MMO (even though I disliked ME2) would be worth 60 Plus the 5 a month, but we'll prolly never get a real MMO on the 360... Just logistically too hard.
WraithMastah
I barely had the money to get Black Ops this year. Do they really want to give their competition that advantage? If any big franchise shooter tried it, I would say they would sell half the copies. What a silly idea. They might make it up with monthly fees, but bad press and backlash would surely bite them in the ass.
Think if enough people tried it we might actually see some franchise deaths? Might be good for us in the long run if we lose a few shooters and got some space open for some fresh IPs. Probably won't happen, but I can hope.
blueboykc
the gaming public needs to stop supporting greedy bastards like activision and bethesda..
NiTeSpY
This just further deepens my hate for Bobby Kotick.
KayB1991
im guessing the shareholders who want this are rich of fairly wealthy and are just saying that so that they could get more money from the stocks. seriously if they start charging for multiplayer i know for a fact that i wouldn't pay for it, personally i would rather pay for a map pack than to pay to just go online plus with the amount of people who won't pay it, activision would lose money and their share holders would be pretty pissed.
subscription for cod = worst idea ever
DrWaffle
I would not only stop playing CoD In all, but I would cancel my XBLA in general. The shareholders state that not charging is "A betrayal of Shareholder trust". That might be so, but charging us for something that we are already paying for is a betrayal of their customer's trust, as they are saying that the bottom line is more important than their players.
I can bet that I am not alone in my hypothetical decision in not paying for XBL anymore, and for that alone, I find it hard to believe that Microsoft will allow this to happen.
Still, Bobby Kotick stating that he would implement a pay-to-play system strictly for CoD "Tommorrow" if possible makes me just sad. We are Geeks, We are Gamers, We are a community. However, it is statements like these that just make me want to puke. Stating that money is more important than the gamers themselves....
This is just going to add fuel to the fire under Respawn Entertainment's first game. I know West, Zampella, and the rest of the old IW crew looks at statements like Kotick's as another reason why it was good reason for them to get out.
mksystem74
dont play it enough to pay a subscription
marcusj0015
NO!!!!!!!
these damn shareholder's are always trying to do what ever it is to any company so they can squeeze money out of it.
why don't these damn leeches find another way of making money?
I'M NOT PAYING FOR XBOX LIVE AND COD ONLINE!
AND IF THEY TRY TO PULL THAT BULLSH.. I WONT BUY ANY ACTIVICION GAME UNTIL THEY REPEAL IT.
blueboykc
Kotick, activision and its shareholders can go straight to hell...the level of hell reserved for greedy bastards to be precise..
Voleran
Hear me out on this one. I think they SHOULD charge a fee on the next COD. Then when nobody buys the damn thing and Activision loses millions, Bobby Kockhead will be to blame, lose his job, and then Activision can become a good publishing company again.
darthjafo
If they charge for the next in the series, but leave the current one (BO) active, that next one will tank. Or..at the very least not set sales records.
As much fun as it is..as long as there's no MP acheivments, I'd just buy/rent for the SP and to hell with MP. Other shooters are coming. Bulletstorm for one.
Smasher122
If they put a fee on multiplayer, the sales will plummet. The analyst just said that because he doesn't play Call of Duty. We already have to pay for multiplayer, so now we're paying again?! That would be CoD's downfall
down311
I don't think I will buy another Treyarch game, Black Ops MP is pretty broken, It's fun when it works but all the problems are really annoying. I got suckered into BO like most others but I'm realizing that Reach is a much better game and I've even gone back to playing MAG too.
I'm interested to see what kind of a dent Battlefield 3 makes, I can't wait for that game. Are BF2 servers still going for 360 ? I might pop that back in for some helicopter action.
poketfulashelz
Hopefully this would only apply to new CoD games so at least I could go back to CoD4, I don't need the latest and greatest, just good people to play with.
BazookaCHE3
If Activision would start charging for multiplayer i would quit CoD. the analyst is correct in thinking that charging players would make a lot of money based on the time people spend playing, but also he's just an analyst. I dont know this mans life, so i cant say that he knows nothing of the people who play online multiplayers but as one i would refuse to pay to play a game online, that i pay xboxlive and my internet provider for, on top of the $60+ for the disc. i believe big wigs and share holders want to convert a first person shooter into a WoW when they are completely different.
Melotraumatic
June 2011: "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" featuring new maps, some new weapons, and a co-op campaign. All for just $60 + 4.99/month. Coming this November.
I guarantee you almost no one would even bother and would stick with Black Ops or even MW2. Not a smart move.
Janaki
I'd start playing free shooters on PC more often, like Combat Arms, or just switch back to playing Starcraft 2 or 1
CommonSense77
If they add a fee myself and my entire clan will never play again. Medal of Honor is on its way to being the better game anyhow.
Displaying 221–240 of 249
1191011121313