@wolf_blitzer85: The difference is whereas I can pay for XBox Live gold and play every single game released on the 360, if I pay a subscription for CoD and only get to play CoD? I don't think many people would be on board for that. Yeah it works for WoW, but that's about it and WoW is a far vaster game than any CoD has ever, or likely will ever, be. Even if they say 'hey pay us $x.xx a month and play all CoD games online for free' (which I doubt he will as it would be giving up potential income) it still doesn't compete with XBox live where I can play every CoD game on 360 + Halo, Gears of War and Bad Company.
" @ch13696: Really? You believe that 60% of people who pay for XBox live only do so because of MW2? And even if he gets his open platform and subscription fee for CoD, how many people are honestly going to pay for that? What other PC shooter requires monthly fees? The Battlefield games don't. Team Fortress 2 doesn't. It just boils down to bobby Kotick being greedy and not understanding the industry he works in. "
Those games aren't subscription based, but wanna bet if Activision advances with montlhy fees the others will follow suit? "If he does it, why shouldn't I?" "
MW2: 60 bucks on PC
Assassin's Creed 2 by Ubisoft is 60 dollars as well.
Someone just needs to get the ball rolling, and as you said, others will fall in line.
@mazik765
On top of that, fuck yeah people will pay a subscription to play online. The thing is I don't think he is looking to replace the PC market rather the current console market. Lots of people on 360 are already paying a subscription to play their Modern Warfares and Halos online. How would Activision's subscription service be any different especially if there is going to be some sort of proprietary Activision console or whatever. Just think of it as Activision's version of Live. "
Yep. The same happened with the Ubisoft-type of drm. Ubisoft launched it, got the heat, and soon after EA's CC4 appears with the same thing.
So greedy man is disappointed that another greedy company's closed platform which allowed him to sell crap games and plastic en masse has taken some of his profits (as he sees it) and now he wants to support the open platform which he was was quite happy to see die because it may mean that he grabs a few more percentage points in profit. Colour me shocked.
It's a pretty poorly thought out statement too because Dell can barely manage to keep their own retail customers happy (there are many pages of BBB complaints against them) so I fail to see how they could successfully make a TV based PC console and support its underlying infrastructure effectively. PC games don't need such a crappy thing anyway. We like our choices of output, input, OS and game delivery platform. Simplicity is for the console only gamers.
I think it's funny though that both MS (Molyneux comments on the PC version of Fable III) and Activision have done a 180 on PC in the press recently because it's still a huge and highly profitable market. Despite the big three trying to hide PC gaming sales figures over the last two years the fact of the matter is that PC as a games platform is still an extremely successful one and now two of the three are openly admitting so.
What Kotick says may actually be true, it's just not a statement meant to be seen by the average console gamer. I think what makes it scary is that he is a man who may have the power to genuinely sway the industry in the direction of his will.
" @ch13696: Really? You believe that 60% of people who pay for XBox live only do so because of MW2? And even if he gets his open platform and subscription fee for CoD, how many people are honestly going to pay for that? What other PC shooter requires monthly fees? The Battlefield games don't. Team Fortress 2 doesn't. It just boils down to bobby Kotick being greedy and not understanding the industry he works in. "
Those games aren't subscription based, but wanna bet if Activision advances with montlhy fees the others will follow suit? "If he does it, why shouldn't I?" "
I meant to say probably 60%. Anyways, you don't have to follow Activision. How many games came out after MW2 on PC? And they're still not $60? There's quiet a bit. Last I checked they're still $50.
" @ch13696: Really? You believe that 60% of people who pay for XBox live only do so because of MW2? And even if he gets his open platform and subscription fee for CoD, how many people are honestly going to pay for that? What other PC shooter requires monthly fees? The Battlefield games don't. Team Fortress 2 doesn't. It just boils down to bobby Kotick being greedy and not understanding the industry he works in. "
Those games aren't subscription based, but wanna bet if Activision advances with montlhy fees the others will follow suit? "If he does it, why shouldn't I?" "
I meant to say probably 60%. Anyways, you don't have to follow Activision. How many games came out after MW2 on PC? And they're still not $60? There's quiet a bit. Last I checked they're still $50. "
A lot of them are already at 60$. AC2, Splinter Cell Conviction, Starcraft 2 will also be at 59.99$. Slowly games will tend to that price.
" So greedy man is disappointed that another greedy company's closed platform which allowed him to sell crap games and plastic en masse has taken some of his profits (as he sees it) and now he wants to support the open platform which he was was quite happy to see die because it may mean that he grabs a few more percentage points in profit. Colour me shocked. It's a pretty poorly thought out statement too because Dell can barely manage to keep their own retail customers happy (there are many pages of BBB complaints against them) so I fail to see how they could successfully make a TV based PC console and support its underlying infrastructure effectively. PC games don't need such a crappy thing anyway. We like our choices of output, input, OS and game delivery platform. Simplicity is for the console only gamers. I think it's funny though that both MS (Molyneux comments on the PC version of Fable III) and Activision have done a 180 on PC in the press recently because it's still a huge and highly profitable market. Despite the big three trying to hide PC gaming sales figures over the last two years the fact of the matter is that PC as a games platform is still an extremely successful one and now two of the three are openly admitting so. "
And I still don't get why Kotick just cancels out his comment on Dell and HP and just sticks with PC. We all know that we're able to hook up a PC to a TV anyways and play that way. My PC and my girlfriends laptop has an HDMI port. Hell my TV has a DVI and RGB port also. Look, let's say he does get his PC to TV platforms. What makes us think they'll succeed. Look at how many consoles that came out and crashed.
" @ch13696: Really? You believe that 60% of people who pay for XBox live only do so because of MW2? And even if he gets his open platform and subscription fee for CoD, how many people are honestly going to pay for that? What other PC shooter requires monthly fees? The Battlefield games don't. Team Fortress 2 doesn't. It just boils down to bobby Kotick being greedy and not understanding the industry he works in. "
Those games aren't subscription based, but wanna bet if Activision advances with montlhy fees the others will follow suit? "If he does it, why shouldn't I?" "
I meant to say probably 60%. Anyways, you don't have to follow Activision. How many games came out after MW2 on PC? And they're still not $60? There's quiet a bit. Last I checked they're still $50. "
A lot of them are already at 60$. AC2, Splinter Cell Conviction, Starcraft 2 will also be at 59.99$. Slowly games will tend to that price. "
" @ch13696: Really? You believe that 60% of people who pay for XBox live only do so because of MW2? And even if he gets his open platform and subscription fee for CoD, how many people are honestly going to pay for that? What other PC shooter requires monthly fees? The Battlefield games don't. Team Fortress 2 doesn't. It just boils down to bobby Kotick being greedy and not understanding the industry he works in. "
Those games aren't subscription based, but wanna bet if Activision advances with montlhy fees the others will follow suit? "If he does it, why shouldn't I?" "
I meant to say probably 60%. Anyways, you don't have to follow Activision. How many games came out after MW2 on PC? And they're still not $60? There's quiet a bit. Last I checked they're still $50. "
A lot of them are already at 60$. AC2, Splinter Cell Conviction, Starcraft 2 will also be at 59.99$. Slowly games will tend to that price. "
Did anybody else notice how he quietly just mentioned that he wants Activision to run an online service for this pc-console thing...I'm thinking it'll be just like Xbox Live with a subscription.
If all games were to start subscription-based multiplayer should Activision successfully make money via the same method, I would quit multiplayer in a heartbeat. It isn't worth the money, and I rather keep my money for more important things.
Thankfully single-player campaigns in games are still good for the most part. Always enjoyed a good story or thrilling gameplay sequence instead of random non-contextual killing with randoms who all sound like they were never educated. Though I would also like less instances of gore-fests in my games, as that always makes no sense in many good stories, but this is all personal opinion.
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.
Log in to comment