Activision 'already charging' for CoD online - Ubisoft

Analysts anticipating a Call Of Duty subscription service may be wasting their time: Activision is already charging for the game's online component - just in a different way, according to Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
movements2971d ago

Yeah, that's why I won't get this game.

MGRogue20172971d ago (Edited 2971d ago )

There won't be no subscription fee.. Read the full article next time.

You will only need to pay for future map packs.

BulletProofVess2971d ago

is that they've already planned them

which to me sounds like there done and could have just been included

yet activision wants to milkit

Jake3602971d ago

Exactly. But they know millions of fools will buy the map packs regardless.

vickers5002971d ago (Edited 2971d ago )

Almost every game that's been recently launched has had DLC planned for it before the game was even released. Fallout New Vegas had DLC planned before the game was even out, and is supposed to fix one of Fallout 3's biggest failures, which should have been in New Vegas to begin with, but they are scamming people into buying their DLC so they can continue playing their own game.

I know you might say that people don't have to finish the campaign missions first and can complete all the side missions, and then the campaign, but if you have any gamer friends or surf the internet regularly, then everybody is going to be talking about everything about Fallout, including the ending, so you're likely to just have the story spoiled for you if you choose to wait.

Activision isn't alone in this pre-launch DLC bullsh*t, so don't act like they created this milking tactic, or are even one of the few who do this kind of sh*t, because they're not, a lot of companies do this kind of crap. But don't mistake this comment as a defense for Activision, because I personally hope they go bankrupt, but you should also apply the same standards to other companies such as Bethesda as well, and speak out against their milking tactics too.

PinkFunk2971d ago

Agree with vickers500.

By no means am I defending Activision; I think they're downright crooks. But the same standard should be applied to every other company. I hope that most companies plan to release downloadable content, and even have it somewhat conceptualized, but still need additional extra time post-production to warrant actually paying for it.

I don't know what developers and publishers have in mind, but I can only hope that they keep a level of integrity when figuring this stuff out. I like to think that there's usually one or more persons that try to uphold the fight against some of these money-grubbing publishers.

The important thing is, as consumers, we try to be as aware as possible when our trust is breached, and maintain the discussion that further feeds our awareness. Unfortunately, as it goes, sales figures usually show how blind some consumers can be. But it only takes a few to change the masses... right?

AndrewRyan2971d ago

$1 a month would be a fair price. This would mean that all DLC would be free, including the ridiculously priced map packs.

Sony3602971d ago

So you're saying there will be one?

skip2mylou2971d ago

@andrewryan no it wouldnt be fair because you would be paying for something that wont be out until like a year after the game comes out and even then you would already be paying for something that will not have support after 2 dlcs like other cod games havent had support for a while

Longrod_Von_Hugendon2971d ago

He talk that shit now but when KZ3/Crysis 2/Resistance 3 come out pfft! Nobody is going to want your stinking DLC. ; )

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2971d ago
FishCake9T42971d ago

Did you even read the article or are you just a COD hater?
I dont buy the DLC so im alright, and how is buying something extra for something you like classed as "charging".

HSx92971d ago

because it's already on your disk, this is why hackers are useful at times, they can view whats inside the disk.
Did you know shipment backlot and pipeline? they just weren't finished completely, so they aren't playable.

TheLastGuardian2971d ago

Watch Activision announce that Call Of Duty: Black Ops will be pay to play online the day after release. I certainly hope not. They should wait until the next Call Of Duty comes out to have a subscription service. If there is with Black Ops I'm selling my copy.

Sony3602971d ago

Because everyone else gives theirs away from free, and plenty of other games are just as high quality as CoD.

Doesn't include M$ forcing publishers to charge for DLC by the way.

TROLL EATER2971d ago (Edited 2971d ago )

rainbow six RIP

SKUD2971d ago

DAMN SHAME!!!! *cries and hugs casket*

ZombieNinjaPanda2971d ago


It's comments like yours that always make me laugh. See, what I get from your comment is basically saying "they're not forcing you to bend over so quit bitching".

Sony3602971d ago

Yet thousands of drones like yourself will buy it, encouraging them and other publishers to charge more in the future.

radphil2971d ago (Edited 2971d ago )

And yet idling sitting by while people foolishly support this action is ok?

It's one thing when DLC is planned way later down the line. It's another when they REUSE older maps that were in other games, and re-charge you for them. It wouldn't be so bad if you were able to carry over a form of validation, like installing maps from previous CoD games.

bananlol2971d ago

I dont buy milk flavoured titles, and if i must i buy them second hand(which is as bad as pirating but im to lazy for that). Seriously people, bitching online is never going to accomplish anything, vote with your wallets!

Sirhc922971d ago

your ridiculously obnoxious and retarded comment is exactly why:
1. no one cares about what you have to say
2. you only have 3 bubbles now & will probably have less in the future.

do everyone a favor and just cancel your N4G account douchebag.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2971d ago
tacosRcool2971d ago

I probably won't get this game regardless of this or not. But this news makes me think pretty negative towards Activision

badz1492971d ago

"But this news makes me think pretty negative towards Activision" - after all these times, you weren't already?? you must have very very low expectations! or maybe just too forgiving when it comes to Kotick and co.!

CrIpPeN2971d ago

I won't get this game regardless of what they do.

But the DlC has got out of hand in general.

Graey2971d ago

thank you.

I've been saying this shit since the DLC bonanza started. How are you going to release a game on wednesday and then the very next week have DLC for it. Are you serious.

In all honesty...voe with your wallets, or games won't be the same. Hell it will be the other way around, you'll just get a code or something that unlocks the game and then you will only be able to go so far until you have to pay to access another part of the game.

Bump that.

Sirhc922971d ago

i absolutely agree with you pal. the last MW2 map packs were really high. i mean $15 per pack? damn...i really hope that someone out there puts a stop to this relentless highway robbery from piece of s*** gamer developers out there.

gtamike2971d ago (Edited 2971d ago )

same old COD zzzz
This COD should be called "Call of Dusty Black MOD" as there is not any big improvements that make me say wow!

Unlike this

BYE2966d ago (Edited 2966d ago )

The thing is, it works. Kotick gets a free pass from gamers. At this point, he can basically say and do whatever he wants, people still stay loyal to him and his company no matter what. They complain every year, then open their wallet.

So much respect to Activion for a very successful business strategy.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2966d ago
JeffGUNZ2971d ago

I disagree. Downloadable content is not mandatory for the completion of the retail version of the game. It plain English, it's OPTIONAL. If you don't want to buy the extra maps, then don't, it's the consumers choice. I think Ubisoft is on a strecth with that claim and I am pretty sure they charge for their Assassins Creed DLC.

lightningsax2971d ago

Yes, and people buy Call of Duty in order to finish the single-player campaign only, right? All those eleventy-billion dollars they made were based on that wonderful single-player experience?

Anyway, no. Their market is hardly based on anything but multiplayer. They make a killing on that stuff. They'd make a bigger killing with a subscription service - *unless* a competitor comes along, does what they do (possibly better, we're not looking at MoH), and provides it for only the retail price. Remember that Zampella and Ward are off making something right now...

Highlife2971d ago

what they should do with their map packs is let them work with every Call of Duty. It would be nice to have a huge selection of maps. I got one map pack for call of duty 4. Haven't got any packs since. I found it to be a waste but if you were able to play them with each game I might consider getting a map pack again.

JeffGUNZ2971d ago (Edited 2971d ago )

Your point? I know it's multiplayer based, but they are releasing like 14 maps with the game. It's not like they are making you pay for the maps that are released when the game is released. It's all EXTRA content. If you don't want to buy the map pack in the future, you don't have to and you can continue to play the game as you always were. Some people on here think you should get some more content for free. It would be nice, but this is a business and treyarch and activision enjoy making money. Back in the day we never had downloadable content due to technology gaps, but now that we do, there is nothing wrong with ANY company adding on content at a price.

If you want it, buy it. If you don't, then you don't have to.

ZombieNinjaPanda2971d ago


Back in the day PC got free downloadable content, and still mostly does.

Either way, they've planned their DLC ahead of time. Maybe if it was an afterthought then yeah it'd be alright, like a fan request. But they're planning it before the game is done. Think about it.

JeffGUNZ2971d ago

I am thinking about it and it's a good idea. I am glad they are thinking of supporting their product after it gets released. That gives me more incentive to buy it knowing they plan to support it fully after release. I think some people get the word "plan" confused with "completed". Just because they plan on making additional map packs does not mean they have completed making them. I plan on becoming rich in the future, doesn't mean I AM rich now. You know what I am saying? In this day and age, for console gaming, post support for a game should be mandatory. No one complains about fallout, assassins creed, borderlands, and other games having DLC. I think a lot of hate here is because people just don't like activision. I for one, am super pumped they have map packs in the future planned. Also, again, everyone has the option to NOT purchase them if they do not desire to.

lightningsax2971d ago (Edited 2971d ago )

That's fine, and they've earned people paying for a multiplayer game up-front and then paying for maps down the line. People wouldn't do it for a bad multiplayer experience; I know full well that it's a fine-tuned kind of game.

At the same time, do you remember "microtransactions?" You know, all those free MMO's with absolutely no barrier to entry, but once you were hooked, you'd pay a small amount for every little thing? It's a lot like that, except those free MMO's, a few exceptions aside, blew chunks. COD isn't bad, so they've earned the right to make tons of cash on DLC. It's "extra," sure, but if you're still playing MW2 multiplayer, and you have been since launch, who are you kidding? You're buying the new maps. You want more MW2, not a new game, not an expansion pack, just more.

Chill. You're right about the past, but current-gen production and marketing are friggin' expensive. They also have to retain their audience until the next game, so they make new stuff and you have to pay for the staff time taken to make the new stuff. The most expensive part of creating content, especially on existing tech, is paying staff.

One thing that was much, much, much better back in the day was support for user-created content. Consoles have all the power and storage of a three-year-old-PC, but games made for these closed consoles are killing something that's thrived on PC's for years. You don't see a COD Map Creator on PS3 or 360, you can only buy what they give you, and that sucks. Can we at least agree on that?

JeffGUNZ2970d ago

Yes, I was never a big PC gamer, but you do have a great point. I wish they did have user-creator levels, that would be real nice. I remember I use to do that with Starcraft back in the day and it real expanded the experience. I don't disagree on all you're saying at all, I just mainly disagree with Ubisoft saying that COD is charging people a subscription because they charge for DLC maps and such, yet all their expansions for singleplayer games cost money too. I don't disagree with your views, just with what Ubisoft commented.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2970d ago
xXxSeTTriPxXx2971d ago

are letting their voices be hard loud and clear with there money and they liked being shafted plan and simple.

Nihilism2971d ago

Guess what kiddies, you brought this on yourselves. How much was that >8hr shooter that was bugged on release and had online only MP with no splitscreen or offline gameplay?, $59?, and how much was it after the map packs so you could keep playing the same maps as your like minded fickle friends?, $79?

DLC ftl, online only MP ftl, yearly rehashes..that have that same features...that you keep buying ftl

Substance1012971d ago

Sadly thats what its comedown to, people brought it on themselves. I havent purchased a COD after MW1, since its only been rehashes later on.

Activision really is running out of ideas, everything else they do just fails. Asides what Blizzard does ofcourse. People will learn sooner or later, if COD sales were to go down Acitivision will have nothing left.

retrofly2971d ago (Edited 2971d ago )

I've played Online for 20d 4hrs, +7hrs SP, +7hrs Spec ops
Thats 498 hrs. I purchased both DLC's so that means I spent $79.
Which works out at $0.16 dollars per hour.

Compare that to a 2 hour movie for $15 = $7.50 per hour.

I'd say I'm getting pretty ausome value for money.

Hahahaa at disagrees. You can be petty all you want, the facts speak for themselves. Even with the DLC MW2 has provided more bang for my buck per hour than any game I've ever owned, and I've owned quite a few!

Substance1012971d ago

There are other FPS out there that would provide the same fun factor. MW1, TF2, L4D2, Battle field 2, CS just to name afew.

I got about a 1000hours on TF2 so far, 19usd game released in 2007, gets updates from Valve every other month. Its a different game then when it was released. Along with Community support and mods.

wicko2971d ago

I skipped WaW and MW2 but I am buying black ops. The reason for that is because of the return of dedicated servers and mod support. But I don't plan to pay for any DLC. Even if the game is somewhat shitty, mods will make it better. And while I hate Activision, I want to send a message saying I will support your PC games when you properly support them. Lets just hope they hear that message.

You are right though, there are much better supported games, but I am tired of the ones you listed.

smashman982970d ago

I dont get why ppl disagreed with that. First off im not a big fan of call of duty at all. But what have gamers become when

1. we cant appreciate other gamers' choices in games and consoles

2. we sit here and say another gamer is flatout wrong when they make an opinion on a game / console it rlly is ridiculous

now @ the article

activision aint forcing anyone to buy this its a personal choice and we all now at the end of next year all the black ops maps will be included in one giant pack at budget price so really its your choice

personally i could careless about what activision does they aint screwin me over and theyre only screwin you guys over if

1 you feel that way

and 2 you continue to let them

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2970d ago
kasasensei2971d ago (Edited 2971d ago )

And ubisoft is charging for CAMPAIGN components, see Assassin's Creed 2.... So who's the greedy bitch?

Edit : i think the Exact opposite! lol
i can easily avoid multiplayer components but i don't want to get fu*d and buy a game with a incomplete story.

Baka-akaB2971d ago

both are , but you can easily avoid sp elements they try to sell you .

What are you going to do when all of your friends play a specific map packs , or when half the playlists are dedicated to those ?

Baka-akaB2971d ago


Most of the time sp dlc arent missing part of a story only extra . hell even in assassin creed 2 , the part missing , while it should never have been cut in the first place , wasnt even related to the main plot , important , nor any good .

atticus142971d ago

I actually think Ubisoft is 100x worse then Activision (and thats saying a lot)but Ubisoft doesn't have that one juggernaut game to hold over peoples heads like the CoD series - so they dont get called out for it as much.

The AC series is pretty big but still is a mere shadow to CoD...