Call of Duty' Sets Sights on a Fee

Dumb.

Doesnt everyone pay $15 every 2 months for a map pack? What’s the difference? Video games are still the cheapest entertainment money can buy.

$15 every two months? No.

I can see BF3 taking a LOT of COD players if they charge a monthly fee.

Thats a different extra thing they may try, there will still be free online play with game disks. COD MW3 preorders are 3x that of BF3 and BF3 has had a 2 month advatage.

:facepalm

This is getting out of hand. It’s a fee for the “elite” thingy they are marketing. It’s just a new way to connect to other players via certain criteria. Playing on XBL/PSN with friends and just killing other people will still be the same.

Oh, and the fee also supposedly bypasses the XBL/PSN marketplaces. So this extra $10 a month allows you a new way to connect to others, and get content early.

Yeah, it’s for a new proposed user interface for the game instead of going directly through PSN. Much like Steam.

Who cares. XBL users have been paying service fees for what, since it’s inception, and they don’t seem to be in short supply of users or game buyers. If it means that the server connections would be faster/better/less fucking glitchy than the past two renditions then I’d pay $3-5/mo or whatever minute amount they be asking for.

This is no different then a Bungie.net Pro account for Halo really

But isn’t Bungie free??

People still play Halo?

bungie is free yes but if you want to do certain things via bungie on halo or on the bungie website you have to get a pro account and that costs money.

just like this will. Through halo there is a Bungie network with faster match times and custom matches and shit. That sounds exactly like what this will be

Sadly this is how all games are going to be in the future I think. To be honest it would almost be dumb as a company for them not to do it. Look at MMORPGS, WoW being the big one… You know how much money they rake in? At 16 bucks a month, and a player base thats fuckign ridiculous…

I don’t think its going to be , every FPS you have your going to have to pay a fee, but I have a feeling that big publishers, such as EA for example, may charge a fee for certain features as a company themselves, and that will span with any game with the “subscription type” service. They would pretty much have to do it like that as if they kept cranking out games every year like they have been it will just piss people off if they are paying for subscription per game

The other possible upside to this is that it will slow down the production of games such as call of duty, instead of a yearly release, it might be every couple ofyears or just set in expansions, this is good for a few reasons. Getting a subscription gives a company more incentive to fix things wrong with the game currently, many games get left dead with many bugs still present because a publisher is working on a new game to make more money. Gives them more headroom when it comes to making expansions etc. It is possible for a game such as Call of Duty/Battlefield 3 to live strong with expansions and MOds… Look at BF2 for example, that game has lived long passed its expiration Date IMO, but theres mods for it that are astounding and make them game so much better, some companys are smart and buy rights to these mods and make them even better, this would be a smart move.

Basicly, thinking of having to pay any ammount of money a month for an FPS or any game really seems dumb, but it may not be a completely bad thing. It may translate into a big sucess with a game with the work of expansion and added features. It is 100% reasonable to only release a game every few years so long as you are keepign it up to date, adding features and content.

Game makers used to do this long ago, they would have a solid game, it would reign for a few years, they would constantly update it, add content and people were happy, now a days its cranking them out in volume to be on the top of the charts every year, a subscription type model might fix this and allow for better games to be made

Edit: Also noticed they are making a Hyper Realistic combat simulation game" looks like their trying to get in the ring with BF3 in the sense.

Theres a Marvel or DC game out that you have to buy the game and pay a monthly fee to use it. Theres no free play at all. They had no shortage in buyers. Not my cup of tea though

I could only see this working in the long run if they lower the price on the game it self… i personally don’t like COD… not because of the game play just don’t like war/shoot 'em games

Thats one thing that really pisses me off with these war games is they release a new one every 3-4 months instead of just developing one good game every year or so. I mean I bought battlefield 2 the other day and beat the fucking game in one sitting. I know these games are based on multiplayer but WTF happened to 40-50 hour long games that went somewhere an got you involved. COD and Battle now i just feel like Im playing to tear through the game and have no involement in story at all.

Develop a good less buggy game plan 6 mappacks or even level exspansions and do it once a year for christ sakes

I agree 100%.

Also, if Blizzard is making so much money from WoW. Hurry the fuck up with Diablo III!!

Shady’s post is about 43 pages longer than I can read about video games.

I think your lost. Both COD and BF are a year or more in between titles. COD uses two developers to make two different franchises under the COD brand (Modern Warfare and COD: ???) they are usually 2 years in development. This thread is for the BF Bros to make battlefield seem better. I agree Bad Company two was short as hell and online blows. And like shady said separate monthly paid services is where the game industry is going. WOW, Zynga, ETC have capitalized huge.

BF2 didn’t even have a single player campaign…

LOL @ JVG BC2 online rage because he got rocked at it one night.