Kotick wants CoD subscription service 'tomorrow'

Fr0dders · 28 Jun 2010 at 16:37

dannyjo22 said:
drop the xbox live charge and then charge me £3 a month to play my fav game.

which microsoft will never let happen.

the subscription service will never be allowed to happen on xbox by microsoft. Unless devs want to charge users twice, but that would be suicide.

Sinny · 28 Jun 2010 at 16:42

If the service wasn't a total rip (i.e over £5 a month) however judging from their latest map pack prices I'd highly doubt it'd be a cheap service I wouldn't have a problem.

as long as they

- Provided free content updates
- Had a League system and ranking system
- allowed custom maps to be made

but knowing activision it will be

- Overpriced
- Paid extra content updates
- Integrated into Blizznet
- Would be P2P

Rroff · 28 Jun 2010 at 16:43

Until they deal with the hacking as above not on my life...

after that it depends a lot on what the content is - but I'm not paying a monthly subscription to basically play an fps arena shooter.

JoeBoi · 28 Jun 2010 at 16:47

It would come from the company that brought out the best selling game haven't they got enough money from sales already?

I doubt the next call of duty will be any good due to the fact IW aren't making it. Fact.

K1LLSW1TCH · 28 Jun 2010 at 16:58

JoeBoi said:
I doubt the next call of duty will be any good due to the fact IW aren't making it. Fact.

World at War was also made by Treyarch and that was a great game. Fact.

Zensuji · 28 Jun 2010 at 17:00

K1LLSW1TCH said:
World at War was also made by Treyarch and that was a great game. Fact.

I agree with this fact. Fact

K1LLSW1TCH · 28 Jun 2010 at 17:02

Zensuji said:
I agree with this fact. Fact

A lotta facts in this thread.

antijoke · 28 Jun 2010 at 17:05

And no sign of Rafa.

K1LLSW1TCH · 28 Jun 2010 at 17:13

anticonscience said:
And no sign of Rafa.

Rafa looks a bit like santa's homeless brother.

Wyrdo · 28 Jun 2010 at 17:15

Is this a new quote from him or the same one from last year? Just interested if he's still going on about it.

JoeBoi · 28 Jun 2010 at 17:22

K1LLSW1TCH said:
World at War was also made by Treyarch and that was a great game. Fact.

To be honest mate I think IW set a standard with Modern Warfare I was quite let down by World at War it was ok but I think they've killed this whole World War 2 thing.

Begbie · 28 Jun 2010 at 19:27

I'll stop playing/buying if this happens.

Too many subs.

mame · 28 Jun 2010 at 21:30

I can't imagine paying a subscription for any one game, there's just too many games I like to play. If they were going to go down that route then would it not be simpler to just charge £80 for the game in the first place?

Nor · 28 Jun 2010 at 21:37

Don't really see any gamer benefit to a COD sub. Servers are fine with P2P. Just be more money for the franchise.

What I would pay a monthly sub for is a MMORPG on XBL.

2Thumbs · 28 Jun 2010 at 21:50

The only games that deserve an independant subscription are MMO's, and only then if they're well supported... and even then I still wouldn't personally pay it.

This is just silly and another reason why I'm not a fan of Activision as a company.

Also, Kotick's a ****

thecremeegg · 28 Jun 2010 at 22:52

Well if this happens then I wont be buying anymore COD games

Margaret · 28 Jun 2010 at 23:04

Nor said:
Don't really see any gamer benefit to a COD sub. Servers are fine with P2P. Just be more money for the franchise.

What I would pay a monthly sub for is a MMORPG on XBL.

Dedicated servers on CoD would get rid of a lot of the problems to be honest.

It's still a pretty rubb series though.

biron_w · 29 Jun 2010 at 00:14

BREAKING NEWS - Activision CEO Bobby Kotick wants to milk even more money from the COD franchise!!

Squark · 29 Jun 2010 at 00:49

Plenty of other shooters around to play instead

Anybody with even half a brain would just play them rather than pay subs for more cruddy CoD games, the older ones were better anyway, it's all style over substance now

K1LLSW1TCH · 29 Jun 2010 at 01:00

JoeBoi said:
To be honest mate I think IW set a standard with Modern Warfare I was quite let down by World at War it was ok but I think they've killed this whole World War 2 thing.

How so? It took Modern Warfare and added a few extra things which improved the game. The vehicles were implemented well on the maps in which they featured, the dogs and artillery kill streak rewards were nicely implemented and apart from a couple of overpowered weapons (hello MP40) it was fairly balanced. The single player was great and it had a nice variety of locations, some of the levels still stick out for me whereas with Modern Warfare 2 I have a hard time remembering any of them really. It added all the gore effects as well which for some reason were taken out of Modern Warfare 2, no idea why because I thought they made the game a bit more authentic.

What I will say though is that mine or your opinion doesn't count for everyone elses. Some people love WAW and other people hate it, but the general consensus if you look at Metacritic for example shows that it is widely regarded as a good game and I agree. This post might be a bit off topic but I think some people hated on Call of Duty 3 and World at War purely because they weren't made by Infinity Ward. Call of Duty 3 to Call of Duty 4 was definitely a bigger step up than COD4 to WAW is, no doubt, but still that doesn't detract from WAW's merits, it just happened that it had a very good game to follow up on and I think given the amount of anticipation for it, it did quite well. Yes, the World War 2 theme was starting to get a bit weary, but I think Treyarch gave us some cool stuff that we hadn't really seen in that way before. You can see that they knew that the setting was going to drag if they made any more games themed on that which is why the new one is going to be taking place in multiple eras.