This news is like over a week old, I'm not one to be picky about this site reposting news but seriously; GOD DAMN.

" Let's see how much more hate I can garner by trying to argue a point...
 
@Jethuty:   I like to think I'm none of the above. I've yet to see anyone apply an ounce of logic trying to explain why a subscription based CoD must be bad, and why good business practices make Bobby Kotick evil. If you would like to try and argue either of these points rather than just flaming me, you're perfectly welcome to.
 
 @Korwin: I suppose "free" is the wrong term to use, but I think you understand my meaning. A $10-$15 subscription for a constant stream of new maps, modes, and progression content (more levels, guns, perks) sounds pretty good to me, and more appealing than just buying a couple of $15 map packs.
 
@DiegoBittermen: Yes, a good business decision to pursue a subscription-based business model. I'm actually not sure what you're trying to argue here. As I said, if you don't want this game, you don't have to buy it. If you feel that this game is a key part of an evolving genre that you cannot bear to miss out on, then obviously you do want it. Or you could just be trolling, but I don't feel that blindly insulting people is condusive to an informative and meaningful debate. "

I dont want to have to pay for this

Kotick is a flaming sack of douche.

the problem i have with mmo's is that they are basically one in the same. you'd think that the term 'massive multiplayer online' wouldn't restrict the gameplay so much as to having a party of 5 with classes, raiding dungeons etc, world map in the top right corner yada yada (of course these sorts of things cant directly apply to a game like call of duty) and i just wish someone would go out of their way to chuck in some innovation to the genre. i was just thinking last night how a real ff mmo would be more like regular ff games, but where your friends are the other members of your 6 or so party you play the game through with, rather than trying to be like everquest.

" For me, i would just go with another game than CoD if they tried to get me to pay monthly for playing. The question is, what will the larger crowd do? any answers? ^_^ "

" @Jethuty:  Most products, including almost all video games, are a way to squeeze more money out of the consumer.  I'm still waiting for you to explain why this is worse.  As for your selection of  Kotick's infamous quote, I'd encourage you to take 5 seconds and actually think about it, rather than blindly quoting it out of context. Here's the context of that quote:  Kotick, speaking to a bunch of German bankers who had no interest in the video games themselves, was trying to reassure them that Activision was past the pot and hot tubs era, and was a reasonable choice for investment. He did this by explaining to them that Activision is mindful of the global recession, and tries to keep its costs low to avoid going bankrupt in such uncertain times.  Now that you have some context, would you like to formulate an actual argument? "

no, just no.

No thanks! I'll just stick to Borderlands for Multiplayer co-op shoot 'n' loot thank you very much.  So sick of war games.

I can't believe there is someone out there spit shining this tired old rhetoric and getting away with it. His language is so murky it borders on being syntactically meaningless. Not to mention the fact that his business analysis is thin enough to poke holes in with a cotton swab.

Classic Activision, counting your chickens before they hatch e.g. Guitar Hero 1-5!

I doubt this will work under the standard monthly subscription business model even though I do think something like it will try to be implemented eventually.   I'm not sure Kotick understands his audience to the extent he believes.  To begin with, gamers are a fickle bunch and what's hot today is a has been tomorrow.  Already gamers are migrating away from COD to BBC2 and there are lots of other shooters coming in the 2010-2011.  Secondly, gamers play COD to spend time with their friends, meaning all of them would have to subscribe to this COD service.  Comparing levels and rewards between friends is the draw to the rank system.  If your friends list can't join in, players will seek out games where they can play with their friends.  The only other option is to make new friends that are just COD friends and that seems unlikely.  
 
What could a COD MMO bring to the gamer that can't be provided through current channels?  Online multiplayer shooters tend to stick with a few popular maps, so a large evolving battlefields doesn't really suit the tastes of competitive multiplayer gamers.  There are other games for that type of play and they don't seem to hold up over time as players migrate off to other titles.  So are players willing to pay $15 a month for more stats, costumes and the hope that a good new map will drop every so often?  With modern MMO's there is a constant carrot on a stick reward if the player continues for just a little longer.  I don't see that existing in a competitive shooter.  There are other aspects to MMOs such as crafting, auctions, and boss battles which would have no place in a COD game.
 
What I think some of this might be is Kotick wanting to position Activision to be able to take a percentage of XBL (and later PSN) revenues based on their games' popularity in the next generation of consoles. "We’ve heard that 60 per cent of [Microsoft’s] subscribers are principally on Live because of Call of Duty...we don’t really participate financially in that income stream."  I question whether Bobby Kotick is really interested in creating the next Global Agenda, or if he just wants royalties from the big two for publishing a successful product.  It's the "cake and eat it too" principle.

Wouldn't be surprised at all if it was turned into an MMOFPS. But, I wouldn't join. 
Before MW2, COD2 was the most recent Call of Duty I had played and, MW2 had the same old boring, 6-8 hour campaign and the multiplayer was great fun, but wears off after a while (especially if you're like me and can't seem to get better at playing games online =/). I could see this being the same problem for me if it were to become an MMOFPS.

 "We’ve heard that 60 per cent of [Microsoft’s] subscribers are principally on Live because of Call of Duty,” Kotick told FT. “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." 

if cod went subscription i don't think i'd ever play cod again.  why? because i'm sure if they did this there would be other companies that would still release their shooters without a subscription charge, so i'd get those instead.  so, here's hoping that battlefield never does this, besides that heroes game.

I don't play the multiplayer and I am becoming less interested in playing the single player with each passing game as well.

What's next, subscriptions for singleplayer games?
 
Kotick, go to hell and burn you money hungry fucktard.

I like the people who try to focus on the fact that Bobby is a "good businessman," as though it overrides the fact that turning a game format into an MMO with the purpose of making money (and nothing else, I assure you) makes him greedy as shit. 
 
Video games are indeed ways to make money, but some companies actually try to make the purchase of the consumer worthwhile, as is not the case here.

Well if a company sees a great income on one of their products then yeah they are going to try to squeeze as much money as possible. But the only reason modern warfare 2 was that awesome is all just because of Infinity Ward so what makes him think that future call of duty's will be just as good or even get close to how Modern Warfare was. My GUESS is going to be that like guitar hero this franchise is going to be driven into the ground and just become boring, but its only a guess lets see what the next couple of years brings us. Oh and another guess only pay to play for call of duty I'm guessing its going to be done for the next call of duty  2011

If you thought GREED couldn't be anymore obvious...

The  bad thing is that I could see this working. With the amount of followers Modern Warfare has they could off just enough to persuade people to pay a monthly fee. For example, quote a "free downloadable content" onto the subscription fee offering maps and other goodies for subscribers. Let's just say they ask 10 bucks a month, with new maps coming out every 3 months. In this situation they would not only be getting the 15 bucks for the maps but also squeezing out another 15 bucks for just using their services and other odd cheap goodies to dangle the carrot. Unfortunately I think people would fall for this tactic especially if they love their Modern Warfare. 
 
I for one will not be paying for any subscription fee for a online shooter. At least MMORPGs offer MUCH more with there subscription fees.

How is Treyarch talking? They SUCK at making CoD online. Who would pay Treyarch exclusively for their games? An MMO sounds cool, but no one's gonna pay a monthly subscription to just play CoD. I'll keep playing cod4 if i have to. They are so greedy. 

World of Warfare

Kotick say's that 60% of Live subscribers sign up becuase of COD - Maybe. But how many extra copies of his game get sold becuase Microsoft provides this service. Think they'd sell so many copies of COD just for a 6hour single player?