The lights are on
Analysts aren't right all the time. After predicting a paid subscription for multiplayer in Call of Duty, Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter is condemning Activision's failure to monetize the series' popular online modes as a "betrayal of shareholder trust."
The comment comes after the CEO of Activision Publishing, Eric Hirshberg, plainly denied the possibility of ever charging for Call of Duty's multiplayer component. Speaking about Pachter's prediction, Hirshberg said: "He's probably looking at meta-trends in the world and in culture about online services and new ways things should be monetized from Netflix to cloud-based computing. ...But at the end of the day, all I'm trying to get across is I can unequivocally say we will never, ever charge for the multiplayer."
It should be noted that Eric Hirshberg is the CEO of Activision Publishing, not Activision. That's Bobby Kotick, and he definitely wants to charge you for multiplayer.
In a research note, Pachter mentions Activision's refusal to charge for multiplayer: "Considering that each of the publicly traded publishers exists to maximise shareholder value, we view their reticence to monetise multiplayer as a betrayal of shareholder trust, and can only hope that each implements plans to address the impact of increasing free multiplayer going forward."
Of course, Pachter's job is to look out for stockholders, not for gamers. Even so, if your comments are making Activision look like the good guy, you might want to take it down a notch.
Email the author Joe Juba, or follow on Twitter, Facebook, and Game Informer.
Well here is the thing tick off the customers and your won't have to worry about sharholders when no one buy your product.
any gamer that would lay down cash for cod multiplayer is an idiot in my book, and if they tried to charge for it i think you would see the multiplayer component in games like this take a real dive. unless they want to charge you 10 bucks for the game!
As much as I love Call of Duty's multiplayer, it would have to be a lot more substantial before I would be willing to pay for it. And I don't see the things I would require from a paid subscription to CoD happening.
Pachter is looking out for stockholders, but if Activision puts a subscription on Call of Duty, then most of the gamers (The smart ones) will stop buying from Activision. Then Activision will start losing money and stock will go down, then the stockholders will lose money. So in the long-run, this will only hurt stockholders as us gamers can just move on to another game without to much of a loss.
of course he does. but we (I) won't.
God I hate that guy and now I can pin down why. Stupid topdwellers.
Sometimes you've got to appease your customers instead of grubbing every dollar. Although you wouldn't know it in this society since you can get away with just about anything if you're rich enough/standard enough/transparent enough.
I would still buy the game and play the single player campaign, though I would buy it used and turn it back in for something else after completing it.
I hope they do start charging for multiplayer!That way they will start losing money.I for one don't even play much multiplayer anymore, and if I can get the game cheaper without the mp I will be happy.If they try to pull this crap and still charge the same price they charge now..I have a feeling we all might be playing some other fps shortly after they start this.
dang, now if only there were more FPS's out there ... nub