It's only a matter of time before activision go to far and shit starts backfiring on them.
Activision Adding Paid Services & New Online Monetization Models
So I mean, people complaining, you're still buying Activision games, so really, sound and fury representing nothing. Let's be honest, whine all you want, does it affect their numbers? Not really. So don't embarrass yourselves with a faux petition when everyone in this thread will be playing Starcraft 2 paying for Battlenet.
" @DOUBLESHOCK said:Don't scare me! >_<" they wouldn't ""They wont take dedicated servers" "They wont take away mods" "They wont gimp the pc verison" Yes they will. "
" It's only a matter of time before activision go to far and shit starts backfiring on them. "
Just like EA.
Well, they could - and I stress could - implement a subscription based model, but I think it will not happen.
As you know, all software has a EULA (end user licence agreement) that governs the relationship between IW and yourself as a player.
According to 1up, (source) the game 'will stay free to play no matter what'.
If activision does decide to implement a subscriprion based model, then it would cost the company a lot of fans, and the public outlash would be quite big.
And MMO FPS really doesnt make much sence. If activision is planning a MMORPG of COD, then they are fools, because it really wont work out, and then again, why would they undermine their allready succesful money grab operation aka WOW.
The extent of the MW2 p2p system will go to DLC. as you can obviously expect, the DLC will not be free - and I am fine with paying say 10$ for a some more descent maps.
IF they implement a p2p system what would they really have?
As an afterthough - Quake live is F2P, but had got a optional subscription model that give the user some benefits. Now you may be asking, what are the benifits of Quake Live subscription system when the game is still free to play and how does it relate to MW/COD, well I will enlighten you.
The subscription model allows the subscriber to have some added bonuses that are not avalible in the non-subscription model.
The core gameplay remains the same and has the same maps, weapons, graphics, etc.
DIfference is the privilages; paid subscribers get options to host games (via dedicated servers) and invite people to their game. Game customization includes the map, gametype, private slots v.s. public slots (for example if you want to have you and a buddy + some random people v.s. another team of random people) then you would reserve a spot for your friend to join. Other people (the people who arent paying) wouldnt have a say in what game they are joining and cannot host or modify the rules; they are randomly shoved into a game.
Randomly joining a game is the current meathod of MW2, as you do not have a say in what game you join or what map is selected. If you do a LAN game, then you are bricked from gaining exp or unlocking stuff.
The subscription model would allow you to host games on IWnet, meaning that you would basically have dedicated server functionality; allowing you to play with a group of friends in IWnet and still unlock things. Also, its advantage over LAN would be that your friend could be anywhere in the world playing with you. Naturally game customization would follow - including weapon restrictions and map/game mode selection.
So if they were to implement such a system it would probably be the above one that I stated.
I would be allright with something like that I guess - where it is not required and doesn not yeild any real advantages, but nice to have, as it does not interrupt the couse of the game for anybody else that does not want to pay.
Who is with me on that?
No offence folks, but Activision don't give a damn about us. Same goes for Blizzard, they might actually seem to care but their a business and most business couldn't care less about their customers.
This will eventually happen, but there also relying on the Call of Duty franchise to be ever popular which I don't think it will... just look at how Halo as fallen from heaven lately.
I really do not understand the move towards paying for services that were once provided with the game and either calculated into the box sales or via expansion sales. Nowadays it seems as though kids are happy to spend their hard earned cash on a pet that runs around with you in game or the ability to be able to connect to another person's network to game with them virtually. I support developers and am willing to pay for new content that they have worked on but I refuse to pay for *5 new additional clothing styles to choose from for my online avatar, or bigger rocket launchers*. This DLC bull is getting to me hard.
DLC should be real DLC, not some filler crap that they add in just because they want to make money.
@Kblt: Agreed, hamachi is a wonderful VLAN tool, but the main thing is that I'm not sure it works on consoles ( I mean not installing it on a console, but 'weave it in' to your network ).
I think the only advantage that they are going for is truly dedicated servers. On a huge match, a dedicated server is much better than a regular PC running VLAN.
It's all a money grab.
" @LtWeight said:Sorry, force of habit :(" @DOUBLESHOCK said:Don't scare me! >_<" they wouldn't ""They wont take dedicated servers" "They wont take away mods" "They wont gimp the pc verison" Yes they will. "
@Rowr said:" It's only a matter of time before activision go to far and shit starts backfiring on them. "Just like EA. "
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.