Quick Jump Daily Digest
Thank you for your interest in the Quick Jump Daily Digest. Get notified of all new content on QJ in our free Daily Digest. To subscribe, enter your email address below and click the subscribe button.
Should Activision Charge for Call of Duty Multiplayer? |
Listed in: News Tags: Activision, call of duty: black ops ii, multiplayer, Treyarch
Should Activision charge for Call of Duty multiplayer? Fans of the franchise probably scoff at the idea, but one analyst believes Activision is missing out on some serious money by not doing so.
Michael Pachter, an industry analyst with Wedbush Securities, used the recent Digital Game Monetization Summit as his forum to say that Activision should use a subscription-based model when it comes to Call of Duty’s multiplayer modes. He said: “I know the game sells billions of dollars. Activision did a bad thing with Call of Duty from a profit perspective. They trained gamers that you can buy a game and play it all year, ten hours a week, forever, and you never have to pay again. You just wait for the next Call of Duty. I promise you there are plenty of people, numbering in the millions, who play one game, which is Call of Duty, and they never stop.”
Pachter continued by comparing Call of Duty to the popular World of Warcraft series, which takes a different approach to its multiplayer. He said: “That's just like the people who play World of Warcraft and never stop, yet the World of Warcraft guys are paying $180 a year, and the Call of Duty guys are paying $60. So who's got a better model? This multiplayer thing being free was a mistake. I don't think anybody ever envisioned it would be this big. It's a mistake because it keeps those people from buying and playing other games.”
He does make some good points, especially from Activision’s side, but you can bet that COD fans would not enjoy a switch to a subscription-based model in future releases from the series.
| 25% of voters think this story ROCKS! |
|
|
Comments
However, they probably will soon, especially after reading this if they hadn't thought of it before(which is unlikely).
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Most of the people who play these games probably don't even use their brain and would keep playing even if they charged for every bullet, rank and killstreak. >_>
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
CoD doesn't even have dedicated servers so it's NOT the same thing. You're not paying for multiplayer on WoW, you're paying to rent their servers and paying their staff.
But of course Pachter is oblivious to this as he's thick as two planks.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Activison (or any other publishers) don't need to start charging monthly fees to play online. They make enough money. And we've got the online passes for second hand games now as well so they're even making cash on that.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm a PS3 owner myself but it would still annoy the crap out of me.
Reply
Reply
Reply
You don't? I guess the failure rate doesn't ring a bell? The unbalanced controller? Costly online when NO other platforms charge a fee? The userbase of 12-13 year olds? How about the sheer lack of variety in the game library? Wake up.
A common misconception. M$ wants you to think it's better but it's not. The only thing the kiddies hype is party chat but I think it's stupid. Who really wants to bother someone playing a completely different game? Everything else from Live is equal or better elsewhere.
Lol. Cheaper how? Oh you mean the arcade edition with 4gb of storage? Or the gimped version where you have to buy 2 years of Live? Sorry pal, if you did your research you'd see the scam. It 'looks' cheap up front but they nickel and dime you to death later through accessories, repairs, and Live. Hell over the 6 year lifespan you'll spend just as much on Live alone as a PS3 or Wii bundle.
It bothers me primarily because M$ only succeeds by taking advantage of the stupid and these people are ruining the market by making or supporting poor choices. I game too much to see these problems spread further.
Reply
Reply