PS3 News: Pachter: Shareholders Want Call Of Duty Online Fees - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Pachter: Shareholders Want Call Of Duty Online Fees

Activision was adamant in saying they will never charge for CoD online. But from a business/shareholder standpoint, that's not the correct attitude.

In a new research note issued today, Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter says that Activision's failure to monetize the online multiplayer portion of Call of Duty is a big ol' slap in the face. In fact, he calls it "a betrayal of shareholder trust" and adds:

"We were disappointed to hear Activision's new head of publishing flatly deny the company's plans to charge for multiplayer. We firmly believe that until the publishers address monetisation of multiplayer, game sales will continue to be challenged by the publishers' altruistic decision to provide significantly more entertainment value per hour than ever in history."

Without the shareholders, things don't happen. At least, not for a massive corporation like Activision, which must continue to make their stockholders happy on a continual basis. Gamers have to understand that the bigwigs behind the scenes, including investors, must have a positive outlook. Finished Pachter:

"Considering that each of the publicly traded publishers exists to maximise shareholder value, we view their reticence to monetise multiplayer as a betrayal of shareholder trust, and can only hope that each implements plans to address the impact of increasing free multiplayer going forward.

Even if we are mistaken and charging for multiplayer doesn't result in packaged goods growth, we think that investors will be satisfied if publisher revenues once again begin to grow due to contribution from multiplayer monetisation."

He also said "monetization of multiplayer is one of the greatest opportunities for publishers" and "it would be a serious strategic error to pass on this opportunity." Well, despite CEO Hirshberg's comments about "never charging" for online, we can't help but remember Bobby Kotick's statement, where he said he'd implement a premium charge for CoD online "tomorrow," if he could.

Well, if the shareholders are asking for it...

Tags: call of duty, activision, pachter, cod multiplayer

12/6/2010 12:01:40 PM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (94 posts)

InBlackestNight
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:15:54 PM
Reply

They start charging, they can kiss the franchise goodbye. Or at the very least a large portion of sales. Personally I don't buy games where story and single-player are treated like an afterthought, but this is a must-buy game for tons of people and charging for online play is a death sentence.

Last edited by InBlackestNight on 12/6/2010 12:17:31 PM

Agree with this comment 8 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Shams
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:00:23 PM

From what i heard through the grape-vine, the xbox live gold membership fee was partly increased due to Activision. Six of the 10 dollar price hike goes to Activision, after Activision insisted that the primary source of xbox live traffic and revenue is due to their own franchises, and hence, they deserve a piece of the profits.

After MS agreed to split a fraction of their xbox live subscription fees with Activision, Kotex reversed his previous stance, and insisted that Activision will never charge for COD subscriptions (only because, at least for xbots, they're already doing so). I'm pretty they had their shareholder conferences to announce these details privately, and this is where this news leak comes from.

Hey, well, at least psn COD players still get a free ride still, and thank Sony for keeping the psn free (and the xbots for subsidizing it ;)

Agree with this comment 7 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:11:42 PM

"Hey, well, at least psn COD players still get a free ride still, and thank Sony for keeping the psn free (and the xbots for subsidizing it ;)"

LOL! tools.

Agree with this comment 12 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

FatherSun
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 3:04:53 PM

That sounds very much the opposite of MicroSofts business model. Am I to believe that Activision has that much power among the XBox community. If so.. Then... WOW.. Just wow!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 4:34:28 PM

Yes, I read a couple of articles citing that anti-vision wanted XBL money too.

Plus, if any of you have kept a sharp eye on Kotex, then you also know he's been threatening to take his business away from ALL consoles and put everything under his control, by starting his own anti-vision cloud service.

So in reality, Playstation gameers get COD for the regular price of $59.99, but kotex has just hosed the 360 players, by actually making them pay $66.99 to him for the same game.

And if you think about it, they're actually paying $69.99 for it because the secondary greed-monger, MS has slapped their own $4 increase onto it too.

And even if you're never buying a COD, you are still giving anti-vision $7 of MS's XBL increase, just for the privilege not to play COD at all.

Last edited by BikerSaint on 12/6/2010 5:00:53 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 9:07:24 PM

Its disgusting... I will never pay for that and they will lose millions of customers because of it...

Greed Greed Greed... I hate it and they can go to hell!

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

helgso
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 7:34:46 AM

I love playing Modern Warfare 2 online. If Activision starts adding online fees they can say good-bye to me on the servers.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

dillonthebunny
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:23:11 PM
Reply

share holders obviously are either not gamers or bloody rich gamers.. either way they are bloody rich and want to stay that way, gamers or not.

bye bye cod.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:39:06 PM
Reply

Who are we fooling?

People paid for Xbox Live when it is $50.00.
They paid for it when Live went to $60.00.

They'll pay for COD as well.

Call it a hunch ;)

Agree with this comment 17 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:48:02 PM

True. I don't think this will be as doomed as some believe. There are just too many mediocre people out there who are far to eager to pay for their next mediocre fix. ;)

Agree with this comment 7 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:58:05 PM

What cracks me up is that jaggies are excused on the COD games, but reason for interweb outcries and lowering of rating scores on GT5.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:08:08 PM

I know. It's hypocracy and exposes their anti-Sony bias.

Agree with this comment 10 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FatherSun
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 3:27:41 PM

Make no mistake. They WILL charge for online play. It is just a matter of time.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

mastiffchild
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 6:11:45 PM

Not for a good while I doubt. Sure, COD is a massive franchise but , even as someone who can accept it's a good game at it's core (though I've bought my last Acti game for the foreseeable future), I can't see how even fans can't see it's basically the same(Blops) game this time as for the three previous years.

All they change is the SP which is increasingly slapdash and reliant on ageing nonsense like never ending respawning enemies making reaching a certain point the reason for progress rather than actually, you know, shooting in a shooter. Aside from that we get offered daft scripts and a MP that , though the reason most play, is almost identical to COD4 just with new skins and weapons and streak rewards etc.

In short, and including the fact that MoH, BFBC2 and KZ are ALL NOT likely to be making an extra charge beyond the thing which ALREADY monetises(crap word) MP online shooters-effin map pack DLC, there's not room for Activision to go alone in making their shooter pay to play online. They already cut all the R&D they can, cut every testing corner they can(MW2 and BO are buggy messes because of the lack of QA and beta testing)and refuse to, even as market leader, introduce anything above creaky P2P!!

People aren't THAT sheepy that they will literally take EVERYTHING Kotick thinks up and the competition isn't so lame that people won't turn to it should Activision milk a bit too hard and without actual improvements next year I'd imagine COD dominance may subside a bit WITHOUT them risking extra effin charges. Remember, all this is happening while Blizzard admit that WoW has reached a [plateau and must now keep gamers as a TV show would viewers. Not the time for Acti to risk a massive profit whore like COD.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 @ 8:04:53 PM

If that is the case Maxpontiac, I can't feel sorry for people how can't pay off their homes or get into debt when every dollar has become critical in most people's lives - I for one think of it as money down the drain.

I mean bye your game, get enjoyment and value for it playing online, but to have to pay to play online is ridiculous. That is why I never bought an xBox...

Matter of principles.

Q!

"play.exprience.enjoy"

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

MadKatBebop
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:39:28 PM
Reply

That would suck for the millions of people that ply COD online. I'm all about the singleplayer so this doesn't concern me, but I'd feel bad for everyone else.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lawless SXE
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:41:07 PM
Reply

Of course the shareholders want a monetised online scheme, because it means more revenue for the company, and more money to line their pockets. That doesn't necessarily make it the smart move though. Looking at it from another perpective, if it costs the consumer to play online, less of them may choose to do so, which would result in lost revenue. Admittedly, that probably wouldn't happen. I mean, it's CoD. Besides, do they not already have enough income from this? I think, over ten million copies sold already, as well as ridiculously priced map packs that we know are on the way... Eh, to each their own.

BTW, this may be an outburst of jealousy that I don't have their kind of money, but at least I'll admit that.
Peace.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gamer Girl Gemo
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:05:39 PM

With all these games coming out, who really does?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SixSpeedKing
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 5:52:01 PM

Yeah I mean already from MW2 + COD:BO they have already raked in over 1 billion dollars and counting. And now they want to charge for online? That's just pure greed hard at work for you.

Also last COD I bought was MW2. I don't play online all that much but if they were to start charging I would stop playing altogether. They will not get anymore money from me.

Last edited by SixSpeedKing on 12/6/2010 5:52:55 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Amazingskillz
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:43:04 PM
Reply

They some greeeeedy bastards.

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:19:06 PM

I agree.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Amazingskillz
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:44:17 PM
Reply

I love Sony for giving us the free PSN!

Agree with this comment 12 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

maxpontiac
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:03:07 PM

Indeed. And when one considers that Live offers nothing more then a party system and chat, they can keep it.

Agree with this comment 10 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Phoenix
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 11:41:28 PM

Let us hope they keep it free for the ps4.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:45:33 PM
Reply

Bank machine. Game are just something that's bought and sold to these people. Nothing more.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:47:17 PM
Reply

I think tomorrow would be better if Pachter just rolled up into a ball and expired.

Agree with this comment 15 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

daizycutter
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:51:50 PM
Reply

in fact let them charge for the online multiplayer ..it would be the the end of the franchise online, and then a new FPS will come out and replace it until the next time...let the greed consume itself

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 3:56:34 PM

which will be battlefield bad company 3. Heck, battlefield bad company 2 already takes it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

airwedge1
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 12:53:23 PM
Reply

they do charge for multiplayer it's called the $60 we payed for the game. Take multiplayer away from a cod game, and you get a short below standard last gen experience that'll sell an insignificant number of copies. I hate the short sighted overlook people have sometimes. Same thing with them thinking that they don't get any money out of a re-sold game. They did, they got the original $60

Agree with this comment 7 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 4:28:04 PM

airwedge1,

Agreed. I've been saying it for years: the used game market actually drives new games sales because many of the people who buy the game on day one do so with the intention of trading it for the next game and recouping part of their money. Without a used game vendor like GameStop, those people would buy fewer games at full price.

People only have so much money to spend on games.

Essentially, the industry can choose (greatly simplified example): sell one new million units at full price and have many of those games re-sold a number of times OR sell two million new units mostly at half price, since people will wait for price drops OR sell five hundred thousand units at full price because they never reduced the game to budget price and people had to choose whether to get game A or game B instead of being able to afford both.

Last edited by Fane1024 on 12/6/2010 4:39:26 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BTNwarrior
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:00:08 PM
Reply

what those shareholders don't understand is that in charging for online play activision would be effictivly destroying their #2 money maker

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Gamer Girl Gemo
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:02:20 PM
Reply

I think the money that's been paid for just getting the game should be enough. I understand the whole business stuff and needing to keep up the money and whatnot... But isn't the money they're making off the games just plain enough?
If they ever started charging for online play of CoD, I'd have to say goodbye to my days of online free-for-alls. I wouldn't pay to just have fun with my friends online.
All I can say is that they may lose a lot of online players because of the fee and it would hardly be worth the charge anymore. So keep it free, kapeesh?

Last edited by Gamer Girl Gemo on 12/6/2010 1:03:16 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:09:30 PM

Don't reply to the spam bots they're bots. Just report them with the yellow /!\ button. :)

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gamer Girl Gemo
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 2:07:14 PM

Awesome, thanks for the info :)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 2:17:29 PM

No problem. :)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 3:00:06 PM

No, don't do anything. I see them all and they're gone the instant I see them.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FatherSun
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 3:20:12 PM

In response to the question. Is the money they are making not enough. No! Its never enough.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Hezzron
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:12:01 PM
Reply

Hmmm. If Activision were to start charging for COD online play, I wouldn't buy the game. That would give me some money to spend on something else, like Activision stock. Then again, with me not buying the game, surely Activision stock would plummet, making it a bad investment.

With talk like this, I'm starting to think Activision wants me to hang onto my money......and for the sake of his reputation, Kotick might want to put his foot in his mouth soon. Pachter is making big strides in taking "douchbag" to the next level.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

ZettaiSeigi
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:19:45 PM
Reply

They obviously just want more money, and are striking while the iron is hot. I can't see why they still have to charge any amount for online access when sales alone for the game is enough to cover for anything they spend for maintaining the servers. COD earns billions, for crying out loud. Don't tell me they need more money than that!

Personally, I don't think there's anything else Activision can do that would redeem them from all the mistakes they made this generation. And yes, my PS3 library is Activision-free and it'll remain like that.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Ludicrous_Liam
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:22:23 PM
Reply

OMG A GIRL GAMER L@@K!!!!!!!!

Just kidding. BTW COD sells at 45 pounds in the UK (Like $70 odd), its like it feels special compared to other games lol.

My friends, (casual gamers) would not pay a fee for cod, I don't think they're THAT delerious. Some even admitted it was a re-hash. But yh let them make a fee and lets see it fail.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

ZettaiSeigi
Tuesday, December 07, 2010 @ 4:51:17 AM

If you're referring to me with the "Girl Gamer" comment, you are mistaken. LOL I'm a fan of Andrea Corr, that's why she's my avatar. :-p

And I'm not the one that thumbed you down. Whoever it was, I hope Activision was paying him some amount of money for it. Haha!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:31:13 PM
Reply

Haha, charge for online play? Go ahead Activision, you won't be getting free money from me... at least not anymore.

I hope they do. I would love to see Activision drive the nail in the coffin.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 4:03:08 PM

To Thumbs Down Person:

Ahh, poo on you ;)

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ZettaiSeigi
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 8:36:03 PM

Someone's obviously upset that we are not sheeps that would just do anything that a greedy publisher wants us to do. It amuses me. :-)

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

big6
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:33:12 PM
Reply

I'll just play multiplayer games that don't charge online, when Activision monetizes their online.

If Activision goes ahead, I fully expect EA to follow suit, shortly after.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

big6
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:37:24 PM
Reply

I think when/if they charge for online, there will be MILLIONS of takers
Maybe not you or me, but the 11-year old kid who is begging their dad will get his way. =)

How many people in that scenario? 5 Million? more?

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 3:00:57 PM

I hate to believe it, but I think you are right.

If it were MY kid, I'd make them pay for it themselves.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 3:05:54 PM

LOL! I i can't wait for the day my kid turns 11 and begs me for something like this so I can give him a resounding NO!

Parents need to man up. :)

Agree with this comment 7 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 4:02:21 PM

Agreed! AND...If I ever heard my kid screaming the crap I hear (and sometimes say myself) online, I'd slap the headset off their head, pick up the mic and scold them while everyone was listening.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

GamerKid123
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:45:30 PM
Reply

Huge CoD sales = FREE multiplayer.. Pay to play multiplayer = Decrease in sales due to lack of interest? Therefor Pay to play = Less money surely?
I thought Shareholders were supposed to be smart.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Clamedeus
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 1:46:06 PM
Reply

If they do charge, you won't see me play that game ever again.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Amazingskillz
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 2:00:17 PM
Reply

Pretty soon their gonna try and charge you just to turn on your TV.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

aaronisbla
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 2:24:41 PM
Reply

Its not like they'd lose too many fans if the monetize it, most would follow and pay like the blind sheep they tend to draw to the series

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 2:27:03 PM

I wonder how bots would react considering they already pay %60 for Xbox LIVE. Shams pointed out, they are in essence subsidizing PSN/Call of Duty users. I suspect many of them would cry about it but in the end give in and pay the extra cost as they don't really have anything else to play.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 2:26:36 PM
Reply

Charge to play Call of Duty?!? That would be the last day I play Call of Duty. Too many other shooters that are better are either out or coming out..Hell Call of Duty can't even hold a candle to Killzone 2..wait until 3 comes out...MAG is even a better shooter. It's far more in depth and actually..you know..requires team work for the most part...

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

dveisalive
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 2:27:04 PM
Reply

screw online fees :P, if they charged people like myself would still play because we all know that its addicting!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

FM23
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 2:29:19 PM
Reply

Sadly, this is the world we live in. People are too greedy and money is the source of this greed. Most of the world problems and peoples stress are related to money issues. I have school loans to pay, upcoming grad school fees, a fix it ticket (lol), bills, etc. and I know many people are in the same boat. Money isn't flying in our pockets. And for alot of these people, some use CoD online as an escape for a few hours, but now you want to charge them resulting in more stress meaning no online access are increased debt. This is one of the reasons why I got out of business, it's a cutthroat world and greed doesn't sit well with me. Money isn't everything, but sadly to some it is the world and more. CoD is a below average game with a strong fan base.

Not sure why America and the world is in love with arcade war based games, but then again most people in the world are greedy and violent so....but seriously, Activision doesn't need to keep finding ways to steal gamers money. I mean CoD doesn't seem that hard to make as the game has felt the same for 10 years now meaning development cost must be low. Then they keep outselling everyone and getting money from unfair DLC...these guys are rich. Ironically, if they do implement an online fee...all these CoD jackass's will pay for it.

My friend wanted some money so he could pay for Xbox live...for what?...for the one and only CoD. All he plays is GTA or CoD, and when I tell him to play something like Batman Arklym Asylum...he screams "it's too hard"...lmao Idiots will pay for it because CoD is the only game that exists in some peoples minds nowadays. There are much better games than CoD, yet this mediocre franchise keeps selling. America loves mediocre products, I mean look how much money both Transformers movies raked in and they both were "Mediocre".

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 2:33:14 PM

They aren't stealing it if these idiots are willing to give it.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

556pineapple
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 2:38:40 PM
Reply

If they start charging for online, sales will drop and those fatcats will have killed the franchise that's making them continuously richer as it is.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sha4dowknight05
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 2:49:11 PM
Reply

when did this game wan to be like mmos?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 4:44:48 PM

Even MMOs are moving away from the subscription model...except for Blizzard. Coincidence?

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FatherSun
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 3:20:32 PM
Reply

Vampires!

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

AcHiLLiA
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 4:06:04 PM
Reply

wow, expensive DLC and now this. I hope they keep it free cause I like to play a couple of matches here and there.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 4:25:22 PM
Reply

A monthly charge for a Treyarch production? It's pretty clear Pachter doesn't play the games he prophesies about.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Wissam
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 4:55:22 PM
Reply

Speechless.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Inception
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 5:00:58 PM
Reply

I'm cool with bringing my business to the Battlefield franchise

Last edited by Inception on 12/6/2010 5:01:06 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 5:13:07 PM
Reply

Patchar needs to shut his f*cking mouth & stop trying to stir up a hornet's next.

Patchar IS trying to influence the shareholders by putting out 15,000 articles about this same sh*t every other day, therefore injecting himself, and his poison arrow bulls*t right into the hearts & minds of anti-vision's shareholders.

If it wasn't for all of patchar's comments, I doubt the shareholders would have even thought of it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SixSpeedKing
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 6:02:58 PM

Yeah so true I hate the way that guy talks, thinks, acts, is still breathing lol jk. But really he's causing a sh!t storm.

Last edited by SixSpeedKing on 12/6/2010 6:03:13 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Axe99
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 5:25:40 PM
Reply

Pachter is an idiot! If CoD charges, and no-one else does, millions of people will shift to competing products.... Shareholders will love that, not!

Last edited by Axe99 on 12/6/2010 5:27:10 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 5:41:31 PM
Reply

Pac attack just threw down the gauntlet. If they do charge it will be interesting to see how they deal with that "never" comment.

Why not just create an online only game like MAG and make your money that way. Nobody plays the SP anyway.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 6:26:17 PM

I would think the best way to do it would be to make their own online only game. A great many a gamer would be pissed if they popped in Black Ops and suddenly needed to enter a credit card in.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 9:11:39 PM

World,
What...did I just read you righT? MAG has SP?
I thought it was online only.

All I ever play is SP mode, so I'd definitely get it ASAP if so.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 9:37:53 PM

I think he just meant no one plays the single player in these shooters in general. He knows there is no single player in MAG.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 9:56:32 PM

"online only game like MAG"

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 12/6/2010 9:56:49 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 10:15:58 PM

OH OK, got it now!

That's what I get for just skimming the posts tonight(due to a giant migraine).

Last edited by BikerSaint on 12/6/2010 10:16:59 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Snaaaake
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 5:56:23 PM
Reply

This is pathetic, CoD is making tons of money already and they still want more?

Still charging for online, maybe it will affect the PS3 sale, but not the 360 sale, you know the bots buy it no matter what.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 6:27:00 PM

Right, what they need to do is just keep making Call of Duty games. They sell well enough on their own. No need to charge more. Just pure greed.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Snaaaake
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 6:34:40 PM

What happened to the 3 CoD in 2 years plan?
Isn't that overkill already?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CH1N00K
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 6:35:29 PM
Reply

Another reason why I don't think that there will ever be a COD game in my game collection. I have yet to own one, and with this thought process, I don't see that mentality changing anytime soon...

I used to pay 60 bucks for a game that had no multiplayer but was at least had some effort but into making an immersive gaming experience. Then gaming changed and some games I even paid 60 bucks for to play just the online...which if the game was good..why not? But if you're going to charge me 60 bucks to by a half ass thought game and then charge me again to play that crappy game online with a group of friends whom I've never met before? You can take your game and shove it...MSN is still free I can chat with my friends there, while I'm playing a good game at home..off line...the way it used to be...Or maybe I'll shut off my system and go outside and do something like exercise...I hear that can be fun too...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nickjcal
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 7:19:31 PM
Reply

Back in the depths of Activison. Their working on a new machine called MEBOX or MoneyEatingBox. The system will be 200.00, but games will be what Kotick wants in price and you'll have to pay for online and then pay to play the game online with a subscription fee...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kokoro
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 7:37:59 PM
Reply

People have always paid for mediocrity.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 9:25:17 PM
Reply

Man, that new youTube video of that single player gameplay footage of KZ3 was amazing. I think I can forget about CoD from here on out now.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Monday, December 06, 2010 @ 10:21:31 PM
Reply

And now frigging garbage mouth Pachter is at it again (I'm seriously wondering if he's secretly on M$'s gravy train)


Pachter: PSP2 is " Dead On Arrival "

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/pachter-psp2-is-dead-on-arrival/



Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dreno
Tuesday, December 07, 2010 @ 12:55:01 AM
Reply

If they start charging to play COD online than activision ca just take COD and shove it. I like COD but not that much.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Imagi
Tuesday, December 07, 2010 @ 5:44:38 AM
Reply

People who bought CoD get what they deserve! They legitimise Activation's actions, supporting them by continuing to throw money into Bobby's grinning face as he flips a birdie back at them, before kicking them down to the ground and taking what little money their is left before he walks away laughing from the now lifeless body.

Shame other's will follow suite at the mercy of their own shareholders. It is one of the downsides of now having the moronic masses into gaming.

Last edited by Imagi on 12/7/2010 5:45:12 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

MadPowerBomber
Tuesday, December 07, 2010 @ 5:51:44 AM
Reply

How is anything this guy says fall under the category of "news" or "worth repeating"?

It's not even worth paying attention to, really.

I love this site, but if I could resurrect Robert Stack and assign him a new Unsolved Mystery to look into, it would be why you guys repeat this guy's guesswork every time he says anything, while other newsbits that actually have something to do with video games go entirely unnoticed.

Although, I wish I had that dude's job. Make crap up and get paid for it.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

alcrowley
Tuesday, December 07, 2010 @ 6:29:11 AM
Reply

Damn, this just makes me sick to my stomach. This guy, all the people like him, are just major a*holes. This makes me sick, and I don't even play COD, or online at all. Always looking for the easiest way to empty the players pockets!
I'm sorry for my rant, but currently I'm having doubts if I should continue to support a industry that clearly doesn't give a fu** about us in developing countries. I pay the full price, plus shipment, wait 30 to 40 days until I get my game (if I EVER get it), and I read this douche bag bi***ing about how he and the shareholders thinks we pay so little for games, and how they could and should monetize more, and still they don't even try to sell games to us, but I guess it is too hard, its better to suck dry the customers they already have...these guys, these guys would skull-fu** their mother if they could monetize it those unorganized grabastic pieces of amphibian sh**...
I'm sorry for my rant, and pardon my french...

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ebterp
Tuesday, December 07, 2010 @ 7:46:31 AM
Reply

For me the $60 spend for a COD already has online built in. There is not way that the SP part of these games is worth $60 by itself. Now if Activision wants to break the two up and charge $40 for the SP and then $20 to play online then fine but any money on top of the $60 is pure bullshit!

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

FlyingKickPunch
Tuesday, December 07, 2010 @ 6:16:48 PM
Reply

I read somewhere that Kotick wants to start charging for cutscenes in Acti-Blizz games.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Tuesday, December 07, 2010 @ 6:56:10 PM
Reply

OMG! HAHA!
Money hungry bastards

Last edited by Scarecrow on 12/7/2010 6:56:16 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Zerrekk
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 11:32:18 AM
Reply

In some ways aren't we all shareholders if we buy the game? If they want us to pay more to play, then maybe we should get a small slice of the million dollar profits.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Redflametrow
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 12:57:36 PM
Reply

If Activision started charging for online, then they'd sell less games by a lot. If their competitors are willing to not charge for online then their competitors would simply sell more. Their product isn't amazing and isn't necessarily even the best in its genre. One thing video games could utilize is advertising on load screens. It wouldn't be that difficult and it'd be an additional steady revenue stream. Of course this is my idea and I'd like to be paid in order for them to implement it. Most likely though someone has thought of this by now. Still one can dream that I'm the first to mention it.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Banky A
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 3:22:27 PM
Reply

I actually hope they charge for online play. I want to know what my COD-and-Xbox-only-loving friends think of it.

Sorry to you good people here who just play it for fun without bias :)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SonyPuppy
Thursday, December 09, 2010 @ 10:54:44 PM
Reply

And notice how most of the trophies are becoming increasingly online ones. So if you want your platinum trophy you have to fork out the extra cash. Greedy pricks. Try serving those who buy the games and you'll keep making money, screw us over like this and you'll lose in the long run.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

What do you think of the Destiny beta?
It's awesome! Can't wait for September!
It's only good, but I'm having fun.
Eh, it's okay, but I expected more.
It sucks, period.

Previous Poll Results