The lights are on
We've heard it time and time again, but Activision CEO Bobby Kotick just can't stop talking about it: He wants the future of Call of Duty to include a subscription model of some sort. But that's not the only thing he reveals about Activision's future in a recent Financial Times story.
In the interview, Kotick suggested that as much as an astounding 60 percent Xbox Live Gold subscribers are primarily paying the Gold fee to play Call of Duty games. "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."
The Financial Times makes the logical leap to note that the added "value" to Call of Duty players would come with a cost -- a subscription fee. Kotick seems to believe that getting this subscription method to work on a console would be difficult, so he's currently looking at other methods to achieve this goal:
"We have always been platform agnostic. [Consoles] do a very good job of supporting the gamer. If we are going to broaden our audiences, we are going to need to have other devices."
According to the article, Activision is planning to "aggressively support" a new line of gamer-friendly PCs from Dell and HP that are designed to be connected to TVs. If successful, this could grow the PC gaming market and give Activision more of an opportunity to launch a PC-only, subscription-based Call of Duty that could be work.
The Financial Times also says that "Activision Blizzard pioneered multiplayer online gaming with its World of Warcraft franchise." That's not exactly true, seeing as World of Warcraft was released four years before Activision Blizzard even existed and since Blizzard borrowed the subscription model from previous MMOs -- they just happened to be a lot more successful. Hopefully Activision sees the lesson there: It's not just having a subscription service in a popular franchise that will make them money, but actually creating a quality product.
I could see this being successful. I imagine the structure would be somewhat similar to Planetside, with different objectives and methods of accomplishing them, but done alot better. I'm interested to see where this goes in the future.
It's a long shot but why do I think he might just try to have Microsoft up the prices of Xbox Live Gold and get a piece of it. (Yes I know it won't happen, unless if Microsoft already has ideas.)
Actually the most interesting bit for me is gamer friendly PC's made to go with TV's.
I know pcs can be attatched to tvs anyway but itd be nice to just buy a pc pack guaranteed to play certain games. like a crysis ready pc or something.
I really dont want to have to upgrade often or built a pc. Id like to buy something made to be easy to upgrade for those who love gaming enough to get a pc.
Sounds pretty kool. I'm sure it's really great news for all the PC gamers out there. Hope they do it right.
this is for you kotick t(*_*t)
BRUSHIE BRUSHIE BRUSHIE
I would never do it. If he thinks that 60% of Xbox Live subscribers are only paying for that service because of Call of Duty he is absolutely nuts. Jeez. I am tired of talking about his fool. I am so glad I am not like him. Only thinking about money and how to take advantage of people to get it while at the same time pretending he is doing us favors.
What a fake.
I hate having a subscription fee for gold. Having to pay additional subscription fees for games would really suck. I know, I know, maybe it is for the greater good of the gaming industry, but still. Also, Activision wanting a slice of Microsoft's money is a terrible idea. That would mean that the 40 percent of gamers who do not regularly play Activision games would be paying Activision for nothing. Activision should be happy with the chunk of money they already make, and the happiness they give tons of gamers who cannot afford subscriptions.
Yeah, I mean if you or me are going to pay a subscription fee, I expect the product to be worth while.
Kotick can suck a pickle suprise.
There are already games out there learning from the brilliant designs of the Call of Duty games, and while it may catch on for a while, people are eventually just going to gravitate towards the game that offers the same thing for free.
You would like to "provide more value" to those customers, but apparently can't? What about the millions and millions of dollars earned from map packs containing only a handful of new maps. That is obviously a ridiculous amount more than what it cost to produce them. And the same can be said about WoW's DLC items.
What if making all these thoughts public is actually a scheme to make us feel relieved when they charge more for the game or (even more) for the DLC instead?
Food For Thought.
I'm sorry but I got halfway through that article and all I heard was "Hi my name's Bobby Kotick and not only am I going to milk the Call of Duty series for every dime it's worth, I'm gonna milk the gamers who have been patient enough to put up with our shortcomings thus far and still play our games obsessively."
I was reserving judgment during the whole Activision vs. Infinity Ward legal battle, but this just pushes me over the edge. What's next? A separate subscription for when Halo: Reach comes out!?
"In the interview, Kotick suggested that as much as an astounding 60 percent Xbox Live Gold subscribers are primarily paying the Gold fee to play Call of Duty games"
Say WHAAAAAT? 60%?!? Kotick pulled that number right out of his anus...to the point where it is beyond an exaggeration. It is a straight up LIE to suggest that basically 2/3rd of XBox Gold subscribers are paying the subscription fee just to play Call of Duty games.
Let's completely disregard Madden football and pretty much every other sports related game. Hell...forget about Halo games. While we are at it, ignore the Gears of War franchise.
What Kotick is basically saying is, " We have a product that we know makes money. Lets exploit it to make more money. Who cares about quality when people will by it anyway?" What it's not saying is, " We have a very successful product that gamers love. We want to put more effort and time (money)into the product to give our customers a better experience with our product. This innovation in gameplay and support comes at a price. It's only natural that we have look for other ways to fund this progress. i.e. The consumer paying for it."
Also, what's this about "...new line of gamer-friendly PCs from Dell and HP that are designed to be connected to TVs."? You can connect any computer to a TV for far less money than buying a new one that's TV specific. It's simply pointless to be looking into this.
Bottom line... The consumer will pay. That's a fact. All I ask is that the product is quality. If I pay to play, it better be more than worth the price. I better not run into ANY mods or bots. (No comments about the "impossibility" of this please. Thanks.) Dedicated servers are a must. Period. Just improve the overall experience. We all know you can make quality. So give it to us. All the time. Gamers are the reason that Mr. Kotick can live the life he does. All CEO's, Developers, and Producers would do good to remember this and respect this fact.
Im done with Call of Duty. Infinity Ward doesn't make it anymore, so whats the point. If they make it subscription based only, it is just an even bigger reason not to care or play.
Does Kotick want the whole world to absolutely despise him? If they charge to play COD people will riot...