Analyst: Activision will charge for online play eventually

[Vampero]

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-28759-Atlanta-Video-Game-News-Examiner~y2010m6d28-Analyst-Activision-will-charge-for-online-play-eventually

With game sales lagging and gamers extending their playtime with their favorite titles by playing online, Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachtersees mega-publisher Activision finding a way to get money out of gamers spending tons of hours with games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

According to Pachter, "Activision will find a way to monetize the 1.75 billion hours of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 online play on the Xbox 360 in the first five months following the game’s release.

"In the future, we think that Activision will find a way to charge for some portion of online game play, and if successful, we think that other publishers will follow suit," Pachter said. "With the early June launch of the second Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 map pack, we think that online game play will continue to be a drain on gamers’ time and wallets, and think that sales could again slide into negative territory."

When asked if there was something that he'd like to change immediately, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick mentioned that he would like to have a subscription service for Call of Duty in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. "I would have Call Of Duty be an online subscription service tomorrow. When you think about what the audience's interests are and how you could really satisfy bigger audiences with more inspired, creative opportunities, I would love to see us have an online Call Of Duty world. I think our players would just have so much of a more compelling experience.

"I think our audiences are clamouring for it,” Kotick added. “If you look at what they're playing on Xbox Live today, we've had 1.7 billion hours of multiplayer play on Live. I think we could do a lot more to really satisfy the interests of the customers. I think we could create so many things, and make the game even more fun to play. We haven't really had a chance to do that yet."

We don't yet have any hint as to when Activision or other publishers might begin testing their "online monetization" plans or what that exactly will entail. It could be everything from in-game ads, to selling special DLC items, to a full on subscription model, or even a variation of EA's Project Ten Dollar. Whatever it may be, news like this is not good for gamer's wallets that are already stretched thin in this economy.

[FrankForce77]

I don't see this happening which is the main reason why MMORPGs are not widespread on consoles, I pay $50 a year already.

[Symmetric-XBA]

this is pointless. companies want to know how to increase their revenues? its easy, just make games that people want to buy. I feel that over the past few years the companies have gotten off very easy with the production of a lot of sub-par games that they charge full face value for. this has to change due to the fact that their market will shrink if they charge an online subscription service, on top of the inital cost of the game, plus the charge the gamer is already receiving for their xbl service. games that grip the gamer with a great story, bring tons of innovations, and offer a multiplayer experience to keep the gamer hooked to the game are all qualities that we want out of our games. companies need to step up production and provide some new original IP's in order to stay ahead of the competition. i'm sorry but if they make a modern warefare 10 i'll prob. be passing on it. thats why games like Dead Space made such an impact b/c it was an original IP and it blew everyone's mind, and now its sequel is something that millions are waiting for (including me lol). if companies don't feel like making new IP's, then fine, there are plenty of classic titles that millions have been screaming for (TAKE NOTE RARE! WE WANT KI3!). now for classic remakes the bar is set even higher because all of us remember the good ol' days of how a game made us "feel" when we played it, and its up to them to not only re-create the game, but surpass it and make it worth our money to buy it. just my .02

[Justin Bailey]

Um... yea... If this happens, I will be done with gaming. This whole nickel and dime mentality the industry has now is ridiculous. If we are using Microsofts servers and our own 360's for multiplayer, how does a publisher figure there are costs involved? I mean, they already charge us for 3 or 4 maps via DLC. It makes no sense.

[Steeps5]

I agree with Symmetric on better games. I mean look at Rockstar, you never seem them complaining on the news about not making money. Because they make really high quality games, especially RDR and GTA IV.

On the other hand though, the subscription doesn't seem too bad, IF AND ONLY IF they release a whole lot of new content with that money. Otherwise it's an absolute ripoff.

[MXracer721]

What are the developers/publishers doing with the 10 extra bucks per game they've been getting since the latest console releases? They talk about having 1.7billion hours online and what the customers want.......how about cutting costs and just making one badass online game w/o campaign. Instead of an "okay" story just give me extra online maps so I don't end up spending 100 bucks total for a game that's less than a year old. I know this won't ever happen but it's an idea.

[Vampero]

this is pointless. companies want to know how to increase their revenues? its easy, just make games that people want to buy. I feel that over the past few years the companies have gotten off very easy with the production of a lot of sub-par games that they charge full face value for. this has to change due to the fact that their market will shrink if they charge an online subscription service, on top of the inital cost of the game, plus the charge the gamer is already receiving for their xbl service. games that grip the gamer with a great story, bring tons of innovations, and offer a multiplayer experience to keep the gamer hooked to the game are all qualities that we want out of our games. companies need to step up production and provide some new original IP's in order to stay ahead of the competition. i'm sorry but if they make a modern warefare 10 i'll prob. be passing on it. thats why games like Dead Space made such an impact b/c it was an original IP and it blew everyone's mind, and now its sequel is something that millions are waiting for (including me lol). if companies don't feel like making new IP's, then fine, there are plenty of classic titles that millions have been screaming for (TAKE NOTE RARE! WE WANT KI3!). now for classic remakes the bar is set even higher because all of us remember the good ol' days of how a game made us "feel" when we played it, and its up to them to not only re-create the game, but surpass it and make it worth our money to buy it. just my .02

I agree 100% :bang:

[wicked_d365]

It's coming eventually.
Activision has been talking about this since the first MW blew up.

[Steeps5]

What are the developers/publishers doing with the 10 extra bucks per game they've been getting since the latest console releases? They talk about having 1.7billion hours online and what the customers want.......how about cutting costs and just making one badass online game w/o campaign. Instead of an "okay" story just give me extra online maps so I don't end up spending 100 bucks total for a game that's less than a year old. I know this won't ever happen but it's an idea.

Well it has happened for the PS3. Warhawk and MAG both follow that. I've never played either though =P

[MXracer721]

Well it has happened for the PS3. Warhawk and MAG both follow that. I've never played either though =P
Yea I could see how they charge on PS3. But I see it being harder to charge live users another fee. Most people I know have PS3 because the online is free. Good luck getting them to even think about a 360 if they have to pay to play online twice, once for Live and again for the particular game.

[Variation-XBA]

Yea I could see how they charge on PS3. But I see it being harder to charge live users another fee. Most people I know have PS3 because the online is free. Good luck getting them to even think about a 360 if they have to pay to play online twice, once for Live and again for the particular game.

That's where the misconception is. FFXI was an online MMO for 360 and if you didn't have live gold and did subscribe to the game you could still play.

[Unreal]

The reason they have 1.7 billion hours logged on is because its free. On top of that the main people involved in making Modern Warfare are now with EA. I for one am done buying Call of Duty games because of that alone. BTW Activision you want people to play your games, make them better and stop releasing sequels once a year.

[MXracer721]

That's where the misconception is. FFXI was an online MMO for 360 and if you didn't have live gold and did subscribe to the game you could still play.
Wow, I didn't know that. Still in my case, and probably many others, I will most likely alway pay for a Gold membership. So if a company decides to charge per game, for me I would be paying twice for online gameplay. It is nice to know I wouldn't HAVE to have a gold membership I guess.

[Justin Bailey]

That's where the misconception is. FFXI was an online MMO for 360 and if you didn't have live gold and did subscribe to the game you could still play.

And it's looking more and more like this will be the only game that can pull this off. This exact reason is why FFXIV isn't coming to xbox, cause MS wants people to have to have gold on top of whatever SE charges for it.

Look at how many other MMO's have been announced for 360 and then later get canceled. MS apparently doesn't want people playing online with xbox unless you pay the 50$ for gold. (FFXI being the exception to the rule)

[Fargoth]

You know what the people are in an economic recession... SOLUTION! Make them pay more for entertainment!


There's a reason why I quit WoW....

[wicked_d365]

And it's looking more and more like this will be the only game that can pull this off. This exact reason is why FFXIV isn't coming to xbox, cause MS wants people to have to have gold on top of whatever SE charges for it.

Look at how many other MMO's have been announced for 360 and then later get canceled. MS apparently doesn't want people playing online with xbox unless you pay the 50$ for gold. (FFXI being the exception to the rule)

Playstation is now switching to a subscription based service so there is no difference now.

[Ainokeatoo]

Playstation is now switching to a subscription based service so there is no difference now.

No, that's an optional service, for deals on games and add-on's, the online play is still free, which is the difference between the two services. PSN+ charges a yearly (or monthly) fee for deals on PSN store games, add ons, so on and so forth, but it isn't needed to play online. Whereas the subscription for the xbox includes all of that and is needed for online play, only that, the deals on xbox are ten times better than PSN+.