Sessler's Soapbox: Call of Duty Elite

Posted: May 31, 2011
Sessler's Soapbox: Call of Duty Elite
Adam discusses the recent announcement that Activision will offer a premium online multiplayer service for Call of Duty.

Comments are Closed

  • mathanius

    I remember way back in the day's of CoD: WaW, when it was still funny to see people glitch out of the map. Or suddenly start floating.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 10:03 PM
  • Cathartic Denoument

    AMEN, from the 3:33 mark, to the end of the vid.

    And CoD: Elite seems like its for MLG players (& the like; those who can actually AFFORD this BS); other than that, I don't really see anyone else using this thing.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 9:55 PM
  • JeeshusChrist

    I love how everyone is flipping out saying its stupid. Its effing free and you don't have to buy it. For players who actually don't suck at CoD and play competitively actually think its cool. If its not for you than its not for you, so that doesn't mean you having to be an effing jerk about it.

    Seriously 80% of the responses are temper tantrums.
    What are you five years old?
    Do your parents a solid and grow up before they blow their brains out because I honestly don't know how they can be around douchebags like this all day long.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 9:21 PM
  • Wozman23

    I will probably never pay for a mutiplayer subscription service, or multiplayer in general, because to me it is a completely separate entity, and is one that I don't need. On the other hand, I will almost always fork out money to extend the single player experience, as long as I don't feel like I'm being taken advantage of.

    The thing that worries me about subscription services, online passes, DLC, preorder bonuses, etc., is that companies can use them to restrict the amount of game they initially ship you, or sell you an inferior copy that almost forces you to spend extra money.

    If we go along with these tactics and embrace spending the extra money it won't be long before we could be spending $80 on a game and getting the same amount of content we do today for $60.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 9:06 PM

    This is clearly a reaction to used game sales. Activision gets zero money from a used game sale. But, if the used game buyer wants to go into the elite status, they pony up the fee. Activision then at least gets 1 sale of the new purchase of MW3 - 60 bucks, and then another sale of 8 bucks per month once original owner sells the game used. So instead of Activision getting nothing from a used game sale, now they get at least something.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 8:38 PM
  • IIFlippy

    Epic shirt is epic.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 8:21 PM
  • Namzor

    I wonder what Abbie Heppe has to say about this, and how many bleeps it would have in it........

    Posted: May 31, 2011 8:01 PM
  • RPG-fan

    While, it doesn't charge you to play COD online (excluding Xbox Live charges) yet, but what happens if Activision decides to take that leap? Should we just accept it because Activision is a business to make money? If they are to going ahead with that, the likes of EA and other publishers will sure to follow.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 7:57 PM
  • crocodilius

    good ol' Blizzard model.
    if they'll pay, make 'em;
    if not, f%ck em.

    i think this CoD crap is beyond a game at this point,
    i see people playing it just to say that play it...
    some sort of social stigma..

    Posted: May 31, 2011 7:24 PM
  • thejman85

    i think what there doing is stupid i will buy the game but have no desire to pay for clans or to what i have been doing

    Posted: May 31, 2011 7:11 PM
  • KJDog19

    Bungie had this YEARS ago for free. On top of that CoD just sucks. It isn't hardcore, its not fun, its just a big retard fest.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:59 PM
  • Zzanzabar

    Yes businesses are in it to make money, but you cannot make money by alienating your consumer. Its not as though COD is not already a money making machine, this is just the GREED of board members who say that they can make obscene amounts of money like WOW does.

    Do not be fooled, EVERY publisher is watching to see how this plays out, including the makers of Battlefield. If Activision can get away with it, it will become the industry 'norm'. Right now Activision is basically saying "just let me put the head in" that is all I want, you can't get screwed if that is all I do."

    Each year publishers erode just a little bit more away from the gaming experience in an attempt to get larger and larger profits. I am old enough to remember when this trend of thinking happened just before the FIRST video game collapse and DON'T think that it cannot happen again.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:56 PM
  • JakeyBee

    I think one of the most important things to take away from this is that Activision has dumped a lot of money into this project (presumably 3 billion, though figures do tend to get thrown around on the internetz), and I'm sure they won't go without it's money's worth. This will not be a big hit if it doesn't deliver exclusive content/maps, and currently, as revealed by Bowling via twitter--it will not interfere with the game's multiplayer or the way maps are delivered. What does this mean? 3 billion lost for Activision for a feature that looks as if it should be free. It will not interfere with cheating or cheaters, and it won't help you get into a better match. So far, it's just this simple thing a very small percentage of people will pay for.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:53 PM
  • firefist

    I guess BF3 gained more supporters after this huh? But I agree with the majority here that this nickle and dime thing is getting old fast.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:51 PM
  • Lord_Ruinous

    Praise the Lard!

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:43 PM
  • xbigxdavex

    ill pay 5, even 10 bucks a month for COD with annoying kid or hacker/cheater screening. give me customized gaming rooms and map packs for free with subscription and you got yourself a deal activision.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:34 PM
  • mdevlin3107

    This is just not worth it. Adam is all over it, this is not a "worthy service". This adds nothing to the ACTUAL GAME! Like Adam said, publishers are getting to the point where they think that multiplayer is what a game is about, and that is just not the case. As pointed out, those numbers have decreased and honestly this is why games today are watered down and substandard. Games today are going the way of online and DLC, and while they can definantly ADD to a game they should not be the focus, because while we already have to shell out 60 bones for a game, I don't want to shell out another 60 just to get what the devs consider the complete version.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:31 PM
  • CareyGrant

    Did someone delete my previous post?

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:29 PM
  • Xxblink7

    what happened to cod 2 multiplayer? pure fun, people enjoying themselves and not horrible glitches and games being released every year.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:22 PM
  • theantigzus

    why r people complaining? this is not something that is even necessary to play COD. its just sad that people like to complain abouyt everything now adays, i dont like what activision has done to the video game industry (excet for guitar hero im glad its dead, unfortunately it ruined rockband also) but activision is not alone in the blame because brainless consumers keep buying what they complain about so much.i personally stopped buying CoD after modern warfare because i didnt like the game and i didnt like the people it was attracting. So guess what if you wanna point the finger at who ever has the blame for a subscription service which isnt even mandatory then look in a F'ing mirror.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:21 PM