• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Activision Hints At Subscription-Based 'Call of Duty'

PKerr

PKerr

Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Considering how glitchy and unbalanced MW2 multiplayer remains, have fun with that, Activision. There is absolutely no chance in hell I'll be buying any FPS that requires any monthly subscription.
 
I think they should work on getting their code right first. Then, when the game works right, they can talk about "new business models". Or they can plough blithely ahead, oblivious to the true wants of the gamers, and I'll be found over on Ghost Recon Future Soldier or whatever its called.
 
So now I will have the awesome option to PAY MONTHLY to go online and get called a fag by every 12 year old in sight? SIGN. ME. UP.
 
Actually, if done right, it could work out... if they do something like the WoW Tournament Arena people pay to join a specific realm that plays for money every year. the first place team in WoW wins $75,000.

it may not be enticing to casual gamers, but the players that think they are the best and want to show off may be willing, especially if there is a chance to win money.
 
I'm intrigued, but to keep any sort of subscriber base they'll need to radically redesign the game mechanics and add some sort of persistent rewards.

I'm not surprised in the least that this is getting developed. MW2's map packs are projected to make 140 millionish dollars alone.
 
Gah, no thank you. I've enjoyed playing MW2 on XBL, but I'm not going to pay another subscription fee to play a game when I'm already paying a subscription fee for Xbox Live.
 
In other news that's a surprise to absolutely no one, Activision has announced that there will be a new Call of Duty game coming out this year, since they hope to make it an annual game. No other details have been released.
 
The new game this year coming from Treyarch is meant to be a cold war era game with Vietnam the favourite, which makes sense due to the Jungle levels they made in COD WAW in the Pacfic missions. A Subscription-Based 'Call of Duty' would not work because MMO's are complex and COD is not. After Modern Warfare 3 then they could go 100% multiplayer and make a battlefield type game that would work better and then do what EA does...

Pump us full of cash for DLC add ons :rolleyes: to expand any such game. Personally it's a shame COD WAW was already used for a game because the name is perfect for a two era game in the style of Battlefield with WW2 and Modern Day settings on 32-40 player maps...though any such game would have to see them drop the Matchmaking server shite on PC at least as Battlefield type games need Dedi's.
 
They'll figure you'll pay for maps and pay to play online, why not see what else you'll pay for? :lol:
 
Count me out, I'm not even sure I'll get any more cod games after the way the solo-play is going, MW1 is pretty much the first Cod I've brought and enjoyed and after that its gone back to the same mush I've been ignoring since the PS1. The campaign in MW2 wasn't bad but very very short and felt like they were just trying to outdo themselves from the last game.
 
My 360 is offline this week.

Playing through Mass Effect 2 has just highlighted to me what a complete fcuking mess of a game MW2 really is.

Pay to play? Yeah, that'll happen....... :rolleyes:
 
I see absolutely no reason to pay a monthly fee to plat Call of Duty. There's always MAG, Medal of Honor and Battlefield.
 
Well, there are millions of players who probably would. But the fact that MW2 is a broken mess pretty much means I'll never do it. I think IW lost a lot of goodwill with what's happened this time around.
 
As someone who hasnt tried out MW2 online yet, whats wrong with the game? All the reviews were making it seem like the online part was awesome
 
There are just a lot of exploits in the game and it takes them a couple of weeks to patch them.

There's also balance issues - shotguns are still stupid powerful.
 
firehawk12 said:
There's also balance issues - shotguns are still stupid powerful.
Click to expand...
Haha, reminds me of one match where I was sniping on Wasteland. My secondary weapon for that class is the Stryker. Eventually I ran out of ammo and I left the edges for the maps and started scrambling for the bunker. I was running down one of the trenches and had my Stryker out, and somehow managed to mow down like five enemies in a row as they all kept coming up on the sides around me. There's no way I should have been able to take them all out that easily. :lol:
 
If they have you subscribe for additional content, then OK. But if they are turning the entire multiplayer experience into a subscription, then I guarentee that I won't. There's not enough there to make it worth more than the initial purchase cost, and if the single player doesn't get bulked up it won't be worth the purchase at all. Hell, I'm struggling to convince myself that it'll be worth it to pay for Star Trek Online monthly, and that's got to be way deeper than anything CoD delivers. There may be many people who are willing to do it, but the more they push the limits and the more they try to get away with, the more people they lose. It may be a little at a time, but eventually people will stop logging in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top