If the videogame industry is going to rebound from its decline in software sales, publishers will need to look at monetizing online multiplayer, said Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter in his latest investor report. Pachter believes one of the main reasons software sales for PS3 and Xbox 360 are down year-over-year is due to gamers continuing to log substantial hours into a handful of online games and not picking up new titles regularly. "We estimate that a total of 12 million consumers are playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 for an average of 10 hours per week on the two platforms' respective networks, and the continued enjoyment of this game (along with an estimated 6 million Halo online players, 3 million EA Sports players, and 5 million players playing other games, such as Battlefield, Red Dead Redemption, Left 4 Dead and Grand Theft Auto) has sucked the available time away from what otherwise would be spent playing newly purchased games," he said. Pachter also noted that Activision needs to make the first move with multiplayer charges, and expects we could see something with Call of Duty: Black Ops, set for release this November. "We think that it is incumbent upon Activision, with the most popular multiplayer game, to take the first step to address monetization of multiplayer," said Pachter. "It is too early to tell whether that will be a monthly subscription, tournament entry fees, microtransaction fees, or a combination of all three, but we expect to see the company take some action by year-end, when Call of Duty Black Ops launches." Pachter says he expects the publisher will apply a World of Warcraft-like business model to its Call of Duty franchise. Activision will likely continue to offer some form a free multiplayer for awhile, he says, but notes that it's imperative the company capitalizes on the estimated 4 billion hours of time spent online since the launch of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. "We are quick to point out that the average single player game has an expected play time of under 30 hours, suggesting that a staggering 133 million units of equivalent game play have been spent (so far) playing Call of Duty online, with Activision only seeing revenues from the original 20 million units sold, plus an estimated 8 million map packs sold," he added. Activision hasn't been shy in the past about its intentions for some of its key franchises. The publisher has said several times it's looking at new online business models for Call of Duty and Guitar Hero. In a recent interview, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick also made his displeasure known over closed online networks such as Xbox Live. "We've heard that 60 per cent of [Microsoft's] subscribers are principally on Live because of Call of Duty," said Kotick. "We don't really participate financially in that income stream. We would really like to be able to provide much more value to those millions of players playing on Live, but it's not our network." **** YOU ACTIVISION! **Copied off of Ign.com**
I don't think they are legally aloud to charge live subscribers. We pay for access to ALL multiplayer games. I think they make plenty of money on the game, look at MS if they are bothered about the costs, but I'm sure they are just money grabbing again.
I'm a fortune teller and I foresee a sharp drop in purchases of Call Of Duty: Black Ops although I also predict that the moneys grabbers will gain revenue from fan boys and people who can afford to pay monthly fees for a game. But then again WOW does great so I think there will also be people playing games instead of feeding their family for a week. :\ @ B3NW Phantasy Star Universe does a similar thing if I remember correctly so it's perfectly legal.
Fail. At the height of CoD's online playing they got 13 million. Halo 3 had over 27 million at its heigh, and its uni-consular. There is no way in HELL black ops will be more popular than Reach lol. This was simply just Activision tooting their own horn for some popularity. Also, they may charge if they please B3NW. While it would be corrupt, bullshit, and annoying as hell; there is no laws against that.
Haha, they come off as super cocky in this interview. They may be more popular to play at the moment, but thats cause Halo 3 has been out for 3 years. Reach is going to kick Modern Warfare AND Black Ops' teeth in.
Xboxlive Year-Membership: $65.00 Call of Duty Black Ops: $70.00 Online Multiplayer: Priceles... Wait It Cost Money Now?
@thesilencebroken They are completely different games and have completely different styles of game play and audiences usually play both games so I wouldn't be so confident in reach it may have more players but black ops is still going to have a hell of a lot.
Isn't this the reason Activision is putting out yearly CoD games in the first place? To get people to pay more than once? Charging a subscription fee would kill their sales. Just absolutely gut them. The right way to go is microtransactions, and if they really want to put the pressure on people to buy these cheap virtual items, they'll make them have actual gameplay effects like the new perks and guns introduced to MW2. Or go the EA route and make it so that people buying used copies don't get access to multiplayer or the complete single player game without paying.
Are you serious? 27 million is around double of what Halo 3 sold. And, if I'm not mistaken, those 13 million MW2 players are on 360 only.
You are mistaken. That statistic is over both consoles. My stat is from Bungie.net's people counter, and it listed its highest day as having over 27 million unique players logged. This has nothing to do with sold anyway, because its players. I am certain CoD would have in the 20 millions as well, if they allowed for multiple players on the same console... So yes, i am serious. And i just realized that i am comparing one day to one week. MW2 can go suck it lol, Activision is retarded for bragging about that. Despite what some people think, notably those that own both consoles, Halo 3 was a whole new beast video game-wise. Other than a couple of GTA 4 sales records, within a month of its release it had everything. And it still is one of the most popular games out there, 3 years after its release. Bungie has released four games in the same amount that about 6 CoD games have come out, and still has a much higher total revenue for that period of time.
Im glad your all cocky because you know a few facts about Halo, and that you would like to stand up for it...But this has nothing to do with halo. With you being a seasoned member i would assume that you knew halo vs cod threads always get locked because its not a good discussion. This is about Activision supposedly starting multiplayer fees.
Microsoft does not pay Activision any share of the Xbox Live fee. The Xbox live fee goes almost entirely toward maintaining the servers that are used by first party titles and the Xbox Live platform. Companies that choose to use their own servers, such as EA, must pay out-of-pocket to provide multiplayer to their customers, which is quite costly, and is not nearly off-set by the initial $60 purchase of the game if the online component remains active for any extended period of time.
I'm pretty sure EA was the first to suggest doing this with all EA sports online multiplayer. I don't know if it went in to affect, but what they were planning on doing was having a code in a newly purchased game with access to the online multiplayer. If you bought the game used, or rented it you would have to buy access off of the marketplace. Again, I don't know if they implemented it, but I heard about this long before the whole Activision scandal. Anyway, on this topic. I say it was bound to happen. This entire article portrays Activision as just solely wanting money, and not really caring for anything else. With one of the biggest online franchises it still seems not to be enough. Sadly, if this were to happen, people will go forward with it. Because honestly there are as just as much Halo fanboys as there are CoD fanboys, and to be honest if Bungie were to do the same to Halo (Which I hope they wouldn't) I would probably go ahead and pay the money.
The only way that multiplayer fees would be reasonable is if the initial value of the game went down. Like you pay $20 for the game and then $5 every month you want to play online. I wouldn't mind if Activision did something like that because I usually only play the multiplayer for a few months before moving on to the next game. The problem with that is I like to go back to older games when I get bored.
And I thought bungie was milking its players...and this is why CoD games suck because they pull every penny from you they can get. I just lawl because I won't buy the game if they due this... in fact i'm so sick of CoD games I wasn't going to even buy the game in the first place. Activision fail.
I would love to see Activision charge their players. That would only give people more reason to play any other game, namely Halo 3 and Halo Reach when that comes out. Because we all know Bungie would NEVER charge their players for more than the game and the map packs.
Your right, they can't, that would illegal, considering we already pay for XBL, why would you pay for an individual Online Multiplayer game? Thats ridiculous. Stupid move by Activision. They will loose their whole fanbase by doing this.
It's definitely not illegal. Edit: In case you can't get the point of that link, Final Fantasy XI costs something like $12/month. How would it be illegal? Stupid, maybe. Actually it would be the right move to make, business wise. All companies are out there for money, that's why they're companies. The question is if they'll make the game good enough to warrant the money, and then if the benefits of paying outweigh just keeping the money. I'll assume that it'll fall short in both, but saying "OMFG ACTIVION IS GRABBING AT MONEY OH NO, THEYRE MAKING US PAY" is totally missing the point...if Black Ops gets the same kind of activity, it makes perfect sense to charge extra for it, in one way or another. But if it does fall short, the game's activity will drop by a huge amount. So, adding on a cost would be a huge risk to take, one that assumes that the game will be good enough to support it.
Call of Duty is the Madden of FPS games. Charging for an online fee is the absolute worst move they can make. It also doesn't help that Kotick doesn't even give a **** and a half about the industry or gaming in general and just wants to make money. If this happens, I'll have to stick with Halo until a new good shooter pops up, or invest in a gaming PC. DICE already butchered the Battlefield franchise with the **** stain they call Bad Company and the beyond horrible Frostbite Engine that they hold in such a high regard. Medal of Honor is basically done for me (at least the multiplayer) considering EA forced the devs to let DICE do the multiplayer with the Frostbite Engine of all things. Hopefully Bulletstorm doesn't suck.