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

  • BackwardsDuck

    i hav a feeling that ea is going to do the same thing with battlefield except make it free

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:21 PM
  • CareyGrant

    For probably the first time I disagree with The Sess.

    COD: Facebook? No thanks. Kotick's delusional: COD is not a "social network" regardless of how much he wants it to be, or how much he wants to cash in on it.

    For me, this smacks of the first tiny step towards having to pay for multiplayer. Again, I say no. I pay for the game. I pay for DLC if I want it (DLC which is already way overpriced). I pay for XBL. I will not pay nor support a game industry that wants to nickel-and-dime me to death by having to pay a MMO-type subscription to play multiplayer online, a game element that is and always has been free.

    Think I'm crazy? This is how it happens: small changes over a period of time, until you look back and see how far and how much things have changed. I mean, just look at bottled water. 30 years ago people would laugh in your face if you told them they'd soon be paying 2 to 10 dollars a bottle for bottled water (unless you lived in a desert), but look at us now---no one bats an eye. Or spend $5 dollars for a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    But as soon as we consumers are conditioned to pay such outrageous charges the rest of the gaming industry will follow suit (like why it is games cost $60--because that's what we've accepted to pay, so the industry will charge that).

    Adam is correct in that the people calling shots are in the money making business, but if this is the route the gaming industry is taking count me out. I'll read more books, or get out more.

    Elite is an experimental, small step towards paying more.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 6:16 PM
  • Lacheris74

    I'm sure this has probably already been said in some form or another, but we already pay for not only the game, but also the Xbox Live sub (PSN guys excluded), internet fees, and the price of console/paraphernalia. Now they want to add ANOTHER sub? Even at only $5 a month, that's still another $60 a year, why not just charge us double for our XBL sub??? The point I'm trying to make is that by charging us full price for the game, plus something else (optional or not, most people who get the game are going to want to try it out) seems a little bit too close to double dipping the pot for my liking. it's like saying 'here's your game for $60...now bend over and let us tear another $60 from your bunghole...'

    Posted: May 31, 2011 5:43 PM
  • Dindril

    I think it would be better if it was it's own game. Like, a multiplayer-only call of duty game, that is given frequent upgrades and content updates, for just a single monthly fee. It would have a longer lifespan than any other call of duty game, and it could end the constant trend of releasing games with a small multiplayer improvement, and a short single-player mode. Instead, other future CoD games would focus on the story, and if they really want to include multiplayer, each copy of the game could include a free trial (like, a few months, depending on the cost of the service) of Elite.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 5:40 PM
  • Xx7ColdFire7xX

    Funny thing is, Bungie did in fact offer something of this sort (track stats, medals, kills, etc..) for Halo Reach and it was completely free but underused. I myself would check it ever so often to check my stats to see how I am doing. I'm glad it was free because it wasn't something I necessarily needed but it was a neat idea.

    Will I pay money to Activision for this feature?.... Absolutely not
    Why? (apart from COD going down hill) because it was offered free by other developers and I don't see why Activision can't do the same.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 5:33 PM
  • balto85

    I don't blame Activision for wanting to charge. I mean, you can't tell me that any of us would not do the exact same thing in their situation. You're a business owner and you have a product that people are LITERALLY addicted to, and you wouldn't want to make money? My only problem with it is they have not provided a service worth paying for yet. You give me matchmaking. You give me fairness. You show me that you're eliminating cheaters and dealing with them harshly, and I'll be the first in line to pay for a service. But I won't pay for a product that has a reputation of being broken every year it comes out.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 5:20 PM
  • BoydofZINJ

    When I got home my old Cable modem (that I am not using) was on fire and burning! THat is how hot this COD Subscription fee is. HA Well, I am sure hoping EA is putting out good PR for this!

    Posted: May 31, 2011 5:18 PM
  • RookieBrawler

    I never cared about CoD to begin with. I don't think its taking the shooter genre anywhere; the most progress being made this year in the shooter genre is with Duke Nukem Forever. This is ironic because Duke takes us backwards if anything. People really need to look back at what really used to work, it wasn't broke, so why did they "fix" it?

    Posted: May 31, 2011 5:09 PM
  • M0NG00S3M0WD0WN

    All the stat tracking sounds like what bungie has been doing for years now on their website to track Halo 3/Reach stats. And they've been doing it for free. That said, I don't expect this to attract the "hardcore" audience. At least among my friends, the entire cod franchise has become a bad joke, not the least because of activision's perceived blind greed. The only people I see latching on to this are the 10 year olds and the like-minded that have made the cod online community a bad joke

    Posted: May 31, 2011 4:58 PM
  • tsglass

    Halo had this STAT tracking service for FREE. It was called Bungie.net

    Posted: May 31, 2011 4:56 PM
  • AngelsandDemons

    I don't think Multiplayer and single player are separate animals. You drop more money for less game, less gas, less movie, and less food. And, the conglomerates are milking the consumer all in the name of big business and increasing or maintaining their profit margin. It's America but it isn't right. I don't like the ways these trends are going for our industry.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 4:54 PM
  • typhoon_2099

    Why does everybody on here talk in single paragraphs?

    Posted: May 31, 2011 4:50 PM

    if it means no more modders or BS gameplay I would be more than willing to pay like 10 bucks a month or like 80 a year psn should have paid service but its still good service I think anyways. Hey all if you play black ops on ps3 add me my psn is N8SAB3R_PLUR

    Posted: May 31, 2011 4:42 PM
  • vermanshane

    I didn't buy black ops I won't buy MW3 or elite. They are good games in many ways but not ones I enjoy.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 4:27 PM
  • sharpsied

    Will this show how much players spend time camping?

    Posted: May 31, 2011 4:17 PM
  • Chunky_2336

    Heres an idea that i will give for free to Activision so they will automatically listen, Why not have something or start making game straight to HDD via marketplace and PlayStation store, and in that market we can choose between Campaign and MP have Campaign $20-$30 and the rest for Multiplayer so like that people can buy Call of Duty for the story and not have to touch the Multiplayer if they do not want to. And if you buy the SP without MP you can try out the multiplayer to see what you are missing.

    and i know majority of people that play games now is just for multiplayer and never touch the Campaign fir example Halo 3, i saw people high ranks and never finish the Story it is just sad.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 4:16 PM
  • Teejay5


    Posted: May 31, 2011 4:02 PM
  • wingnut47

    I really wish Adam would stop being so wrong about.... everything I guess. Single player and multiplayer are not different entities. We are paying 60$ for a game and we expect a quality experience, both single player and multiplayer. TF2 only has multiplayer and it is $20 at most. That is what is expected and easily obtained. Hell, I had good single and multiplayer games on the PS1 and no one was asking that I fork over extra money to line their pockets. COD is already one of the best selling game franchises in the history of ever, there is no way in hell Activision needs more money to support what is essentially a useless service.

    Until they learn that, I'll be changing my pre-order of MW3 to BF:BC3

    Posted: May 31, 2011 3:43 PM
  • samusco

    I think activision is just getting a little to greedy and way to confident with the COD franchise. First it was the 60 dollar price tag for the PC, then the crappy map packs that were way over priced, now your paying for something to log all your stats? Yeah, console gamers who are "hardcore" will buy it sure, but I think they need to really start worrying about BF3 which is the game that's looking to steal the hardcore audience. COD has great single player, but in my opinion was way to arcade like and silly with the multi-player, and the Battlefield games have always had more of a focus on the multi-player, and though the Bad Company games haven't been amazing games, I have a feeling BF3 is going to really do a lot more damage to the COD sales than Activision would like to think. It would be better if they offered these kinds of services for free so it can have an edge, something small like this quick buck scheme could be enough to make people switch over to BF3. After all, I'm sure a lot of people are looking for a change, and BF3 is going to be a better over all game, especially for the PC.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 3:38 PM
  • mattyd629

    As a casual online multiplayer participant, this doesnt really apply to me, but it is ridiculous to charge people who do care for such a service. Games are already $60, a lot for a game these days being that very few games are actually worth that much. Developers and publishers continue to rape the customers for their money with all this dlc and online pass crap, and they wonder why people buy used games. Now I do believe the people who make great games deserve every penny for their efforts, but they have taken advantage of that these past couple years. Enough is enough. I can see where you can pay extra for certain things and it only cost a couple of bucks, but for this instance with a company like activision, they are wanting to charge for this, on top of those ridiculous multiplayer map packs. I could care less because i never really got into the COD multiplayer, and I dont own black ops because I thought they did a horrible job with the title and were just lazy with it to put out another title for the holiday season. Im hoping modernwarfare 3 is a good game, id buy it for a good campaign, but as for all these extra costs. No thanx. I believe games should start costing $40- $50. $60 just seems so much anymore considering the games are made with the intent of having dlc and so on. I thought a game that actually did it right was borderlands. It was a good solid game to begin with, and over time they kept releasing expansions to further the experience and it was great. Not only that ive seen the expansions on sale more then a few times so it doesnt cost u much. These companies need to get their act together. Quit charging us more and more to enjoy your game.

    Posted: May 31, 2011 3:34 PM