Another reason to hate Activision...

BULLSHIT activision. You would. We already pay you BILLIONS for your retarded game that sucks regardless just because our friends thought it was fun, and then you fire the people who created a brilliant game just to assure that you can steal their millions of dollars, THEN you decide to charge us even more for online play? GTFO naow Activision, assholes arent wanted here!


I am declaring this The Official Activision Hate/Flame Thread.
Bold, Italics, and Underline were included in the title to add effect btw.

 

Lol. This is a joke, right?





...right?





oh



EDIT: Didn't Bungie make a 10 year agreement with them? Bungie better step up if they ever try to milk out Reach!

 

Kotick has already stated in other interviews that, yes, he would like to make Call of Duty a subscription based game, but with the current state of Xbox live and it's subscription, it's not an option right now. So, we most likely won't be seeing this kind of thing until the next generation of consoles, when Microsoft will most likely have free online play just like every other platform, or Activision will be tired of waiting and go subscription based anyway.

And honestly it's not the worst thing to happen. If things went ideally, Activision would release the game with probably a $5 per month subscription, equalling the purchase of one CoD game every year. With a constant stream in revenue and Activision seeing dedicated fans, they might actually give the game half decent support, fixing bugs and glitches more vigorously, as well as adding new weapons, perks, and maps without having to wait for a new game to be released.

 

Except activision isnt in it to make their games more enjoyable. If something is already making them constant amounts of money they wont fight to KEEP that money coming, they will fight to get MORE money coming. They would actually end up creating even more bad games at a faster rate, with much lower quality to allow for the speed to increase in production. Finally, they are smart also. They would most likely offer a 1 month trial of online with a purchase of the game, then force you into a year long contract or something, assuring them at least double what you thought you paid for.

Beleive me, that would be brilliant buisness.

 

Activision made a genius (yet asshole like) business move. They are going to see a MASSIVE increase in revenue (though they're not going to fix the game at all).

They better not do this to future Bungie games, and especially not Reach.

 

This guys got it down pat. We as the gaming community are eager about emptying our wallets because "our players would just have so much of a more compelling experience."

Horse ****ing bull ****.

 

You apparently aren't aware of what is expected, nay, demanded when it comes to subscriptions. First of all, I can assure you without a doubt in my mind, they would never force you into a full one year contract. They would either go on a monthly subscription (with discounts for purchasing more months at a single time), or have you buy hours of play time (however, most likely go with monthly based subscription).

Second, them having you subscribe to a game would definitely not encourage them to make more games. The point of a subscription is to constantly monitor and add to what they built upon, so their customers are always encouraged to keep paying that monthly fee.
---

Why are you talking about this like it has already happened? Guys, if Activision makes the biggest mistake of their lives when they do eventually go subscription based, then don't ****ing buy the game. Every person who buys the game is telling Activision that this is the way they want it, or that they are at least willing for this to happen. So you'll go a whole year without playing a new CoD. Boo-****ing-hoo. They'll realize that nobody bought their game and then go back to the way things were, or, better yet, let CoD slowly die out. The only way you're going to send a message to Activision is with your wallets.

 

You apparently arent aware of what retardation activision is known for. They publicly denounce two of their members, those two members make a million dollar idea, then activision fires them to save money AND face. Thats greedy and retarded because they lost all of their cred for doing that. Second, i do know what a brilliant buisness plan is, possibly the most genius ever created; its called the phone contract. And if activision does it then every succesful game company will join in as well, because they will see how activision manages to more than triple their quarterly revenue. While most game subscriptions run on a pay-as-you-play basis, nothing else does. Not magazines, not phones, not internet, not even television. They force you into a contract of some sort then allow you to keep going if you prefer once it runs out, or renew for fake benefits.

Its called buisness, the gaming company is years behind. And its not gonna be long before they start to catch up.

 

Then it's settled, we all play REACH.

 

Um, that's the point, nearly every single VIDEO GAME with a subscription has the standard monthly based fee. Call it an educated guess or maybe just a gut feeling, but I'd bet almost anything Activision sticks with this accepted form of subscription for games.

Also, unlike many people think, Activision isn't solely in our lives just to ruin the gaming industry. Sure, they are in it solely for the money, but if they want to keep their success, they can't keep garnering all this aggression from the gaming populace. Soon enough gaming will become popular enough that nobody will ever be afraid to talk about it in public, and all the scandals and backstabbing that Activision is involved in will come to light, and eventually people will realize that nobody likes the way Activision is running things. When consumers demand that Activision stop screwing them over, they will. No company is powerful enough to ignore it's customers' demands. I am in no way defending Activision or the things they are involved in, but you said it yourself, they aren't morons. They're aware of their boundaries.

But whether you like it or not, the way we play and pay for games is changing. That's inevitable, and their's nothing wrong with a little experimentation.

 

I completely agree with you, except that Activision has proved itself to be completely brilliant in their methods of making more money. And the most effecient way is to create one amazing game, then sell the title over and over again. Much like how many people bought LP2 even though it fails at life compaired to its predescessor. And also, by creating such a great game and forcing players to commit to long term deals to get online they have a nearly assured source of income. The majority of gamers can afford a $300 xbox already, so they have the money to pay $120 for a game and online services. And if activision does it, chances are it will work like a miracle, because it has never failed before. And im certain that they know that.

^^My fears of proven commercialism.

 

Trust me, most of the 20 million people who bought MW2 have the third grade intelligence to realize that $120 for a single game is beyond outrageous, and the majority won't buy the game. I think it's safe to assume that 1/2 of all MW2 players are somewhat experienced gamers, who actually buy and play a decent amount of games other than CoD. Well, nearly all of those people will not pay $120, seeing as how they are so used to only paying $60 for a game. Then there's the other 11 million who pretty much only play Cod. Let's say that 1/3 them decide not to pay the $120, although I'd expect even more to opt out. That leaves around 7.5 million people who would pay the subscription. Activision would be losing money.

Activision would either have you pay an average of $5-$7 a month, which wouldn't be too bad if it weren't for the Gold subscription fee. So, you might end up paying $84 for a year, which is only slightly more than a special edition of the game. If you really love the game so much, I don't think it's an outrageous amount of money to pay.

 

Welp, **** that. I'll never buy another game with Activision's name on it. Now why would that matter? It's only me. Well Call of Duty is a fun game, no secret there, and if they began charging for it, I'd sleep well at night knowing I don't support such a **** franchise.

Money is so tight these days, and adding a surcharge onto a multi-platform video game where there is already a paid subscription on one platform, is asking too much. What the hell did they say they'd use that money for anyhow? Kotick certainly didn't share any details solely because it's bullshit, it's just a sad excuse to squeeze unnecessary money out of people.

 

I am amazed that everyone is surprised by this... Publishing companies are businesses, and the profitable thing to do is to charge more for high-demand content. Furthermore, video game companies are being hurt by used-game sales, which do not send any revenue back to the company, yet online services, which are costly to maintain, are still provided to used-game purchasers.

There is a large move by publishing companies (not limited to Activision) to charge for online play. There is reason to believe that EA Sports is beginning its subscription-based service with the next Madden game, and other companies will likely follow suit.

The prices for retail copies of games will not change, they will remain at $60. The online features of the title, however, will be locked after a certain point unless you pay for a subscription (current rumors suggest that Madden will charge 10$ for one year of access to online content). You won't have to pay if you don't want to play. If you only play the game while your friends think that it is the latest trend, you shouldn't ever have to pay (provided you stop playing when the fees start rolling in).

Also, as a closing comment, I would say that yes, it does suck that games are going to start costing even more, but what is to be expected from a company that has produced so many low-budget sequels to once popular games in an effort to get as much money as possible?

 

No, what I meant was that if Activision do it they'll start getting **** loads of money. Bad wording on my behalf.

Or like stickmanmayhem said, it could go in a completely different direction. It depends on how many mindless zombies and rich 3 year olds there are.

 

If Reach and Black Ops do get this bullshit then you guys do realise that they are the 2 most anticipated games and the companies will get richer which will make other companies think THEY can get away with it and well it could change console gaming forevah D:

 

Except, Bungie aren't stupid. Chances are, they'll realize what'l happen, all their precious players will stop playing, so they would probably cut the subscription fee. And then Jerome would go all crazy security ****. And then Shiska would be like "wat."

 

There are two kind of gamers. The kind that play video games once a month, and the kind that play it everyday for hours on end. The ones that play more are getting more for their dollar because they only pay 60$ for 100 hours of playing, while those who play rarely are getting ripped off because pay 60$ for maybe 4 or 5 hours of playing.

In a "pay as you play" setup, you support the gamers that don't play as much, because they can pay for only the time they play. However, everyone else that actually plays regularly ends up having to pay much more. Activision knows this. And they also know that there are more people that play regularly than people who only play seldom. So they will make more money.

It's kind of like when you go to a hotel, and they have a console hooked up to a tv that you can pay to play for an hour or two, but it costs 10 bucks. This is the kind of **** they want to pull.