Analyst Suggests CoD Multiplayer Should Be Pay-To-Play

Terminator02

ヽ( 。 ヮ゚)ノ
Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
4,516
Solutions
2
Reaction score
331
Trophies
1
Location
Somewhere near monkat
XP
1,123
Country
United States
from G4TV.com said:
Industry-Analyst-Suggests-Call-of-Duty-Multiplayer-Should-Be-Pay-To-Play.jpg
The "Things That Used To Be Free Aren't Free Anymore" trend in gaming seems to be growing, much to the dismay of non-thousandaire gamers everywhere. For example, industry analyst Michael Pachter is urging Activision to step up and make the first move towards monetizing multiplayer services offered by Triple-A titles.

From an article today on MCV, Pachter says:

"We think that it is incumbent upon Activision – with the most popular multiplayer game – to take the first step to address monetization of multiplayer. It is too early to tell whether that will be a monthly subscription, tournament entry fees, micro-transaction fees, or a combination of all three, but we expect to see the company take some action by year-end, when Call of Duty: Black Ops Releases."

Oh! Thank you for giving them so many options they can use to nickel and dime us, Michael!

Pachter also said that all the time gamers spend playing the same game over and over again online takes away from the time they could be playing other games, thus, not as many units are being sold and to make up for it, multiplayer should be pay-to-play.

Think this sounds like a bad idea? Would you be mad if Activision suddenly made something that used to be free a paid service?
Source

fuuuuu.png
 
Picture definitely suits this situation. Honestly, micro transactions would ruin the game. Examples would fall under: Purchasing perks, weapons, classes, prestige, etc... I would definitely have a few things to kill over.
 
TM2-Megatron said:
I'm guessing those analysts have no interest in playing the game themselves, lol.

Pay-to-play is a deal-breaker, for me. I'll never be a patron of that.
I would rather have micro transactions than Pay to Play, but in this case MT would be a game breaker.
 
We shouldnt trust analists
I think vaganalists are much more wise or something.
laugh.gif


@topic -> banned from live, not caring anyway. lol
 
All shooters seem to be the same to me :/ but I definitely agree that the P2P scenario presented in the OP would totally ruin any chance in a blue moon that I'd even buy one on steam.
 
And my high-tech analysis says I will NEVER purchase a game that requires me to pay for multiplayer. DLC is usually pushing it far enough as it is. Haven't bought an Activision game since GH3 because of just shit quality and a very apparent lack of playtesting. I know Bobby Kotick has blatantly said in the past that if he could charge us more for nothing, he would, but there's a heavy line between someone at Activision saying extremely stupid things, and actually making it part of your business plan.
 
Well activision can try that. But I'm pretty sure it will fail. I can understand Pay2play for games like WoW. Because that game has alot of content. But MW2 is just shooting and shooting and shooting. I'm already paying for xbl so fuck that, I'm not paying an extra charge to play ONE game online.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum