Important Disclaimer: Before you go any further, please keep in mind that this information is only a rumor. It does come from some rather solid sources who could possibly be in the know if such a thing were true, but until I get confirmation from certain parties, this remains nothing more than a rumor.
So why toss this out there? Because if true this would be one of the biggest news stories of the year, and even if it turns out to be nothing more than rumor, it should spawn some very spirited discussion on the state of the games industry, the way certain companies operate and the direction the hobby is headed as a whole.
- Activision
- I can’t see a helicopter gunship without hearing Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son.” Thanks a lot Vietnam!
Over the last few days word has been circulating that Activision (publisher of Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater, Guitar Hero, and 90 percent of the games on store shelves that are not published by EA) is planning to set up a subscription system for the Call of Duty series’ online multiplayer component.
Hit the jump for very few details and tons of questions.
Details are scarce (given that this is, once again, a rumor), but the general consensus seems to be that gamers interested in playing online multiplayer matches would have to pay a weekly/monthly/yearly fee of an unknown amount to play in the same online matches that they can currently enjoy in games like the series’ most recent sequel Modern Warfare 2, free of charge.
Presumably this subscription fee would be in addition to the cost of the actual game itself, as well as any fees incurred by your being online, including the Xbox Live subscription fee and the bill sent to you by your Internet Service Provider.
- Activision
- … and I can’t see a soldier hiding behind a tree, being hunted by other soldiers in full snowfield camouflage without hearing The Buggles “Video Killed The Radio Star.” (I don’t really have an explanation for that one.)
While I want to yet again point out that this rumor has yet to be proven true or false, I would also point out that Activision is no stranger to just how profitable the subscription system can be. After all, the company is now known as Activision Blizzard, a merger that occurred largely because Activision realized how insanely profitable Blizzard’s World of Warcraft is. While the subscription service on that game is de rigueur for titles within the MMORPG genre, the Call of Duty series has been moving closer and closer to incorporating elements lifted from the roleplaying game genre into its online play, including experience points gained over time and special equipment that is truly only available to those who spend hours playing the game.
Thus, the only real question left is whether or not you would pay a subscription fee to use the online component of the next Call of Duty game? If not, why? What would Activsion have to do to make you change your answer to a “yes?”
If you’re on the opposite side of the aisle, why would you drop the extra $5 or $10 per month to play Call of Duty online? Do you love the series that much? Do you want to support Activison as a publisher or Treyarch (or whoever continues developing the series) as a developer?
- Activision
- Uh, I’m drawing a blank here. “Tubthumping,” maybe? Then again, that damn song is pretty much always stuck in my head.
Personally, I wouldn’t pay the subscription, but that has more to do with the fact that I simply don’t play online first person shooters much anymore, and when I do, I stick to Team Fortress 2 and the rare Counter-Strike match on Steam OS X. I play maybe 20 hours of TF2 per year, so I simply couldn’t justify paying a subscription fee for any online shooter.
I am curious if Activision did institute this payment method, what new things would be added into the game. If it was pretty much the same as the last CoD then that would be a true shame and an obvious money grab. But if they truly committed to a long term plan I’d consider giving it a chance.
I wouldn’t pay for the monthly fee the way the multiplayer was for the last CoD game. It was fun for the little I played it, but the youths I played just destroyed me. As a result it was hard to get into when I had a 10 death to 1 kill ratio.
But I do pay monthly fees already to Activision so I can dual box my Warcraft accounts. So I guess I already have enough there on my plate.
I thought that was the point of paying for Xbox Live Gold?
I doubt I would pay for it. If they partnered with Steam and Steam charged a blanket $9.95 to access all multiplayer games via Steam, I would go for it.
But, the lack of updated content for a game like MW2 would never get a dime from me for a monthly subscription without serious adjustments to the total of maps available.
Games like Everquest and WoW that made monthly gaming subscriptions reasonable had ever expending content. The world consistently got bigger, in house live support, and assorted issues caused a need for staffing which caused a need for a subscription base. To keep the world alive, we had to pay. The only reason I could see Activision going for this is a simple cash grab.
But no. By itself, I would not pay for a monthly subscription to CoD4 mw/mw2 to engage in multiplayer. Unless it was like a buck. Counter Strike Source still keeps me interested after having played CS for like 7 or 8 years. CoD loses me for 4 or 5 months at a time due to boredom with maps and a lack of expanding content.
What Viking said. A monthly fee would kill the franchise. There are too many other good shooters out there, and more on the way.