Activision Reveals Call of Duty Subscription Plans

dotarray writes "Activision has denied it and denied it, but now it's been revealed – Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 will feature an online service (that's what Call of Duty Elite is), complete with monthly subscription fees. 'Activision executives said they haven't yet figured out how much to charge for the service, but they expect the cost to be less than fees for comparable online-entertainment services, such as a $7.99-a-month Netflix Inc. movie subscription. Portions of the service will be free, including features inspired by Facebook Inc. that will let Call of Duty players meet for online gun battles with others who share various affiliations and interests. Another feature of the service will give Call of Duty players tools, modeled on those from stock-trading websites, to analyze their performance within the game, gauging factors such as which weapons have been most successful for them in killing enemies.'"

Comments

Depends

[Tukz]

I don't per se care about such a feature, but it all depends on the impact it has on non-paying members.
If paying members get benefits over non-paying members (in game), it's a huge no go for me.

I'm not talking about skins or whatever, but better weapons or utilities.

According to the summery, it seems like it's mostly social features and perhaps early access to DLC and addon stuff.
Fine by me then.

Re:Depends

[Serpents]

Activision Chief Executive Bobby Kotick said he isn't worried

And he probably wasn't worried when he killed Guitar Hero either.

Re:Depends

[Lord Grey]

If they get maps non-Elite players can't get, it's a major no-go indeed.

I think that depends on the gamer. My step son, who is squarely within CoD's target audience at the age of 16, will probably not care about the Elite subscription unless the majority of his friends subscribe. Assuming the subscribers won't be able to lord it over the non-subscribers within the same game via better weaponry or whatever, that is.

Think about this from his point of view, as a current CoD player: MW3 will give him new maps, better graphics, different guns, etc. to play with as compared to what he's playing with now. All this by making a one-time purchase and without an Elite subscription. I'd wager that his current friends will all upgrade to MW3, without the subscription. They'll all see new stuff in the base game and be relatively happy (assuming the game itself doesn't suck, of course). If, however, my step son's friends start subscribing to Elite and playing on maps he can't get to at home, he'll feel the need to subscribe. It's a critical mass or chicken-and-egg problem.

Re:Depends

[NeutronCowboy]

Activision is/was built on 6 games: Call of Duty, WoW, Starcraft, Diablo, Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk. Notice two that were killed off? There are two replacements in the works for them: a new Blizzard MMO and the new Bungie thing. I'm pretty sure Kotick isn't worried right now. But the new Bungie IP is far from a sure shot, Blizzard's new MMO will compete against WoW for gamer time, Diablo is still not out and Activision is doing its damnedest to kill off Call of Duty. As far as I can tell, Activision's cash flow consists of Wow, Starcraft and whatever it can come up with from Call of Duty. Once Call of Duty goes, Activision will essentially be a money sink for Blizzard. I'm wondering if Blizzard can just split off and look for a new publisher. If that ever happens.... Activision and Kotick are dea.

Say WHAT?

[senorpoco]

In what world is chatting with other COD players comparable to Netflix?

Que?

[Spad]

Portions of the service will be free, including features inspired by Facebook Inc. that will let Call of Duty players meet for online gun battles with others who share various affiliations and interests.

Because my primary concern when looking for people to shoot in the face, in the conversationally-focused Call of Duty world, is whether they also happen to be fans of Firefly.

Re:In unrelated news 6 months later...

[nzac]

The more likely result: ... Blackops is still far more popular than MW3

I don't think we are ready for Pay to play FPS though.

Be realistic

[Motor]

Activision won't be done until their entire customer base loathes them and thinks they are greedy control-freak imbeciles.

They are modelling themselves on Sony.

Re:Be realistic

[interkin3tic]

Activision won't be done until their entire customer base loathes them and thinks they are greedy control-freak imbeciles.

No, they just realized that they can abuse their customers more than any other game. It's the biggest game out there, gives it a certain amount of critical mass. If all your friends in high school are having a great time playing it, you'd have gladly given all the money in your pocket and might even promise to do two chores a day for a year if your parents would just let you buy that one shiny game. We were all that dumb back then, or at least I certainly was. Activision has merely recognized that demand is high for the game, and so the price goes up, and they have significantly more leverage.

And their customers may whine loudly, but keep taking the abuse anyway. With modern warfare 2, there was much consternation about the lack of dedicated servers, with many people pledging to boycott. Activision may have worried at first, but would take customer demands less seriously when they saw about half the boycotters playing the game at launch.

Pay for that kind of social enverionment.

[Anonymous Coward]

By my interactions on COD I would say Call of duty plays are the biggest bunch of racist 16 year old cry babies on the planet. They are obsessed with Hitler, cheats, their penis and forced sodomy. I cant imagine paying for a service that increases my personal contact with these increasingly anti-social troglodytes.

If game is for free, then sure

[X.25]

If Activision gives the game for free, then this might even work.

Heh. I am sure it will happen.

Re:In unrelated news 6 months later...

[Hadlock]

Welp.

MW3: The Best Way to Generate Publicity is Start A Controversy

Step 1: Create rumors of a really bad idea, like pay to play online subscriptions
Step 2: Vehemently deny those rumors you made up
Step 3: Announce that those rumors are actually true
Step 4: As soon as the established media goes to print, retract those claims and publish corrections
Step 5: Sit back and cackle while the spergelords are corrected by the other spergelords that read the corrections, generating buzz for you
Step 6: Profit!

There is no ???. This is planned out month^H^H^H^H^H years in advance.

And Activision kills another franchise

[Tridus]

This one is next on the death list, after Guitar Hero already died. They're going to milk it to death, and they're pretty much hitting the tip over point now.

They're also hard at work killing WoW with nickel and dime "premium" fees instead of stuff players want, like say new heroics that aren't recycled troll dungeons from previous expansions.

Re:In unrelated news 6 months later...

[lul_wat]

Still cheaper than my child support. Then again I don't pay that either.

Re:In unrelated news 6 months later...

[JMJimmy]

$5 drinks is the reason I don't go to the bar anymore

Re:In unrelated news 6 months later...

[EastCoastSurfer]

$5 drinks is the reason I don't go to the bar anymore

Which is fine, but that just means you have grown past the bar scene or your bar locations currently stink. Paying for a $5 drink in a bar is basically the cost of hanging out in the bar and not the cost of drinking. For an extreme example clubs in LV charge $500-$1000 for a big bottle of liquor that just happens to come with a table to sit at. The only way to sit in a table is the buy the liquor. For groups of guys sometimes the only way to get into the club is to buy the liquor. So while your bill at the end of the night just shows drinks X $ it's really the location, experience, etc... that you paid for.