Submitted by Nineball2112 1702d ago | news

Free Call of Duty multiplayer 'a betrayal of shareholder trust'

Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter has suggested that Activision's failure to monetise Call of Duty's online multiplayer offerings represents "a betrayal of shareholder trust".

"We were disappointed to hear Activision's new head of publishing flatly deny the company's plans to charge for multiplayer," Pachter said in a research note issued today. (Call of Duty, Industry, PC, PS3, Wii, Xbox 360)

Alternative Sources
« 1 2 »
NYC_Gamer  +   1702d ago
what about gamers trust?you know the people who actually buy the software
Convas  +   1702d ago
LOL, Pachter seems to forget that the shareholders aren't the ones that buy Activision's games. WE are.

I'm so sick and tired of this crap now. Activision and idiots like Pachter have turned Gaming into a meaningless march for Moolah.

I know that all gaming companies are businesses and that the bottom line comes first, but you better not forget who the hell supplies you with that damn bottom line.
#1.1 (Edited 1702d ago ) | Agree(40) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
HammockGames  +   1702d ago
Agreed. Apparently they're eager to bite the hands that feed them.

They better consider monetizing online multiplayer very carefully before going forward with it => the increased profit from that may be offset by fewer players participating/playing.

Side note: Didn't Activision indicate they were largely responsible for the recent XBL price hike - or something to that effect (basically a hidden charge for CoD online MP)? If so, did this moron forget about that?
#1.1.1 (Edited 1702d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report
BattleAxe  +   1702d ago
IMO the customer is more valuable than the shareholder. If Activision jacks us around, then their shareholders won't be making much in the way of dividends from their shares.
Anon1974  +   1702d ago
Ah, Michael Pachter - always with his fingers on the pulse of the gaming community.
JsonHenry  +   1702d ago
Do away with shareholders. Over inflated company net worth causes most economic woes once the realization sets in that a company is not nearly worth what their stocks are selling for.
BabyTownFrolics  +   1702d ago
gamers trust
thats a bit naive isnt it?

gaming is so weird sometimes...

folks have this nostalgic attachment to gaming that makes them feel like it should be immune from the cynicism and soullessness of every other industry.

Corporations are beholden to their stockholders, they must make more money than the year before in order to stay healthy, every profitable avenue must be explored even if such exploration destroys the company. Its all about short term profit, didnt you ever wonder sometimes corporations make more money off of failure than success.

Also if Activision were to implode due to its greed Kotick would be labeled a genius and his new business venture would probably net him more cash. Activisions studios would reform under a different auspice, and the process would start over.

so buy some stocks and become a shareholder, so that your voice really matters, until then go play in the other room, there are adults ruining things in here.
#1.4 (Edited 1702d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
RBLAZE1988  +   1702d ago
What a douche! I know why he was dissappointed they denied monetizing COD. It's because it's just another one of his predictions that got proven wrong and his credibility is tanking. Now he's doing damage control. I can't wait til he goes away.
#2 (Edited 1702d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
retrofly  +   1702d ago
Gamers - 1
Shareholder - 0

Woooo, fuck em I say, we pay they money while they get rich, they can kiss my ass!
XmnMetal  +   1702d ago
Pachter is a fucking Bitch, I hate greed. He is so out of touch its sad.
thesithfreak  +   1702d ago
lol, this pachter guy has been wrong about 99% of what he says for years. why do people still listen? he's less informed than the average hardcore player. the only things he gets right is things EVERYBODY ALREADY ASSUMES/KNOWS
HelghastDrake  +   1702d ago
Remember guys, all this whoring for money by gaming companies didnt happen until the Xbox came on the scene. They started with their xbox live fees and other executives of other companies saw all the people where willing to pay for it so it gave them ideas for ways to nickel and dime.

Why do you think MS plays it safe and dont have any innovative new titles while PS3 does.
munish23  +   1702d ago
Are you kidding? You think these businesses are here to just treat us with games? You think any company actually cares how you feel, maybe certain individuals may, but as an entity they don't give a rats ass.
I can't believe you are so blinded by fanboyism that you find some way to blame just Microsoft.

On some level however I do agree with these analysts. In my opinion games are way too cheap when you consider how much time people put into games. You are paying $60 to get hundreds of hours of gameplay in some cases. And in some way people still find a reason to complain. I will get a lot of disagrees, but prices will definitely go up as the industry grows. These people that you seem to speak so highly of are in it for the money no matter what they say, including Microsoft, Sony, and especially Nintendo.
Corepred4  +   1702d ago
"hundreds of hours of gameplay in some cases" out of all the games that come out only maybe 1 or 2 games a year can give you that kind of replay value. usually being a fps. should games be priced according to replay value now? i think that'd be great because a lot of games would be cheaper!
munish23  +   1702d ago
You're absolutely right, only a couple games a year offer that amount of replay value. I'm just trying to show that at one point the companies will realize they are capable of charging higher prices and people will still buy it. There is no doubt the next Call of Duty will have some sort of fee attached to it, its what any business would do.
BabyTownFrolics  +   1702d ago
Thats some troll shit right there
making good use of that one bubble
Simco876  +   1702d ago
I wouldn't mind paying a small Fee for CoD, but they would have to give us some things for the fee.

Like dedicated servers for consoles, free map packs and secure leaderboards (which they are doing now! Bravo!)

This would warrant a fee, but with bugs and constant disconnects from games... forget paying for it
Soldierone  +   1702d ago
I can see something like PlayStation Plus working. Playing is free but people can pay for free maps (ironic i know) and so on.

Other than that like Activision stated we already pay for online. One map pack a month, most people pay 15 bucks a month to play the game. So pachter can shut up and stop trying to get even more fee's.
Phlapp  +   1702d ago
'I wouldn't mind paying a small Fee for CoD'

Didn't we all just pay $50 for the game??

Mr Patcher how the hell is that free multiplayer gaming?
davidmccue  +   1701d ago
Secure Leaderboards???? I Cannot even get on the leaderboards on hardcore. It says i have played no games no matter how many games i play, so hence my stats are not on the leaderboards, sucks. Also Activision do receive money for multiplayer from Microsoft, and selling DLC, so where's the problem are there wallets not bulging enough as it is.
Shuklar  +   1702d ago
Patcher can sure say a lot, all the while blowing an entire barnyard full of animals. No wonder people always listen to him...that shit takes talent.
Psychotica  +   1702d ago
Ah, I did pay for it. The game was about $40.00 and the online was about $29.99. Maybe the game was .99 and the online was $59.00, whatever works for ya....
AssassinHD  +   1702d ago
Angering your customers with a multiplayer fee would be a betrayal of shareholder trust. I can tolerate optional overpriced DLC, but I will not tolerate a multiplayer fee. I will absolutely not buy a CoD game that has a multiplayer fee, and I am sure I am not alone.
#10 (Edited 1702d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
zagibu  +   1701d ago
You are not alone, but still aloner than those who would buy it anyway. They are dumb. They must have it, because all the cool kids have it. The price doesn't matter for them.
Soldierone  +   1702d ago
LMAO Pachter was wrong (yet again) so he has to find an escape route to make himself look good. Thats all it is.
Grimhammer00  +   1702d ago
Keep in mind that if it wasn't for xbox LIVE they would've sub us a long time ago. It's also widely suspected that MS caved and increased LIVE by $10 to give some/all of that to Activision.

Activation is likely fudging numbers...but they say %60 of LIVE gold members are only playing COD titles. And I have a large friendliest and %80 of them play mw2 or bl:ops! It's madness I'm telling you all!

I'm glad people pay LIVE...my PS3 thanks you all! Lol
liquidus118  +   1702d ago
It's sad, really. This obssession with excessive money is bordering on the fetishistic.
KwietStorm  +   1702d ago
Why won't this guy shut the fcuk up! Or at the least, we, the gamers, need to stop giving him attention. Just stop. Just because he's known in the industry does not mean that you all have to keep posting articles.
Grimhammer00  +   1702d ago
If we stop talking about it, that's a 100% chance we have no say.
Sure as it is we only have probably %10 worth fir these douches to listen to us...but it's something.

Can you imagine how fast EA would garner support if Activision started charging a sub fee?!! Our voices & the competition + LIVE is all that stops this.
muzzy  +   1702d ago
That's terrible but he's right on some level. If Acti introduced subscription for online in COD, millions would pay for it and defend it fiercely that it's been a right move to do. Proof? Xbox Live.
AssassinHD  +   1702d ago
People pay the Xbox Live fee to play multiple games online. Getting people to pay a subscription fee for just one game is more difficult. Especially if they are already paying for the Live service itself. MMOs notwithstanding of course.
frostypants  +   1702d ago
That's just it. We pay for Live for the right to play games online. If we have to pay the publisher as well, from a consumer perspective that's a double-dip. If I have to pay the publisher a monthly fee to play online, then what am I paying Microsoft for? "Live Gold Benefits: For a monthly fee, unlocks the right to pay more monthly fees to publishers to play online!". Even Pachter should see the idiocy of such a model.

It has to be an either/or scenario. Either pay per game, or pay for a centralized service and let said service manage the revenue outflow. The latter is the lesser of two evils, IMO. It's how cable companies operate (just exchange "publishers" with "cable channels").

Can you imagine managing a separate monthly subscription for every friggin' game you play online? To hell with that...

This could be the dumbest position I've ever seen Pachter take. And that list is long and distinguished.
#15.2 (Edited 1702d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
antz1104  +   1702d ago
Its funny how all the comments here ripping on XBL are from one-bubblers. :D
Xfanboy  +   1702d ago
They should make free call of duty like Battlefield fre2play & Warface!!
if Dice & Crytek makes money of the PC market with f2pfps they may have no choice!!
archemides518  +   1702d ago
for once he's right, cuz he knows that most COD players are dumb enough to pay for anything, like 6 xbox after they each RROD, so the only people that would be left to mind a (lack of) fee is the shareholders. the players won't go anywhere.
#17 (Edited 1702d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Bargu  +   1702d ago
Pay for online P2P multiplayer? Oh yeah, too bad that the game industrie is not the biggest and most profitable entertainment industrie ever. Oh wait...
Tikicobra  +   1702d ago
Pachter should shut up now.
DXM1  +   1702d ago
Can you guys PLEASE stop posting shit about PATCHER ? wtf is wrong with everyone? The guy is an attention whore just let him be. Why do you keep posting these "news" stories about patcher said this or that?

His goal is to be well known, not to be accurate. Wtf we need this shit for? His opinion is worthless anyway.
Grimhammer00  +   1702d ago
Imagine a day when a publisher starts a mandatory to play online subscription

How do you think it's competition will see it? Lol

Here's a fact:
-if X is the number of sold games to consumers, how much dlc potential is there?
X. Now. If you add a sub service that's mandatory...you lose a portion of X.
That's lost dlc.

The question here is whether the lost revenue from sales & dlc sales will do more than simply offset. Also, to be considered is the effect to other titles under said publisher.

I think it's clear to anyone with have a sense than sub services are only useful when no alternatives exist.
led1090  +   1702d ago
He calls Activision's approach altruistic and makes it sound as if its a bad thing. Someone please teach him the importance of Customer relationship management and how it affects sales much more than the blind monetization of all available resources without any contemplation of customer feedback. Ohk i made it sound rhetorical but its true :p
Paralex  +   1702d ago
The only time they'll charge is if they implement dedicated servers which everyone demands because they can't deal with latency which, by the way, will always be the issue -- latency will always exist. Want dedicated servers? Who's going to pay for it? You are, duh. Dedicated servers aren't free and have a cost to maintain and keep alive. PC gamers get the benefit of dedicated servers... at a cost. You have to rent them out. They're not free. So keep that in mind the next time you demand dedicated servers on the console version of a CoD game. You might just get it at a cost. Just a thought.

By the way, don't compare it to other games with dedicated servers. Just compare CoD's userbase to other games.
#23 (Edited 1702d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
RustInPeace  +   1702d ago
F*#K the shareholders! Who do they think keeps ANYTHING "alive" with their investments? The consumers who buy the products in question. The money hungry bastards just keep wanting more of whats in my wallet... First it's a system to buy, then any accessories, then a game, then (in the case of the 360) get a membership to play online, NOW they want us to pay a 5th time just to play ONE GAME!? That is OUTRAGEOUS! (i know it's business and business is $, but do these "shareholders" understand, not care, that the consumer has paid from all these angles, so having one more thing to pay either is breaking the bank for some or a deal-buster that sometimes ends with nothing being purchased?)
djfullshred  +   1702d ago
Funny that the people who are supporting a company by purchasing stocks are pitted against those who support a company by buying their products.

Go ahead and try to charge more for online - see what that will do for shareholders when gamers then switch to another game they don't have to pay extra to play online.
#25 (Edited 1702d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Saryk  +   1702d ago
Well said.
As I said in another post. I will not play for multiplayer. However if there is a service that has no cheaters, and gives weekly content, then we can talk. But just buy the game and pay, uhhh, no.
BrianC6234  +   1702d ago
I don't see a problem with paying a monthly fee to play online games but if they want to do that they better give you the game for free and not release a new one every year. Maybe charge $5.00 a month to play it. They can constantly make changes to the game over time to keep it from getting boring. I don't think they should charge $59.99 for a game and then make you pay a monthly fee to play online.
BrianC6234  +   1702d ago
I thought I'd never see anyone be a bigger bozo than Bobby Kotick. Congratulations Pachter, I have now. Can the gaming world just put this putz on mute and ignore him? I am so tired of Michael Pachter.
lefty burns  +   1702d ago
It is the obligation of the company to maximize profits for their shareholders. To act in the interest of the consumer is actually a betrayal of shareholder trust. Welcome to corporate America. It is their legal duty to screw the consumer as hard as possible without reducing sales.
teething  +   1702d ago
Hmmm... at the moment I resent that my Live subscription fees are paying for all the teens playing COD. If Activision charging for COD would allow live fees to drop... I would be all for it. The problem is that MS would just pocket the difference.
MRMagoo123  +   1702d ago
I like cod i play cod and have played every cod released but i can bet you if they change it so we have to pay to play online i wont be getting another cod game again and i suspect there will be others who do this too
#29 (Edited 1702d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Desert Turtle  +   1702d ago
A company's loyalties are to the shareholders. It's business 101.

Is it bad for the consumers? In this case, yes, but as others have said, millions of people would still pay for the subscription.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

See the New Skylander Figurines Articulation

14m ago - Grab it has posted a video that shows the movements of the next Skylanders figurines. | PC

EA Gamescom 2015 Presentation Roundtable Impressions | Yet another mixed bag?

14m ago - "Dealspwn: EA's Gamescom 2015 presentation was only an hour long compared to Microsoft's 90 minut... | PC

Top 5 Games To Play - August 2015

Now - Let's see if August can keep the summer video game heat going... Here's Your Top 5 Games To Play In August 2015... | Promoted post

New FIFA 16 proclaims "football is back" as preorders hit their lowest price yet

14m ago - Dealspwn: Closing the show at EA's Gamescom press conference this morning was a brand new trailer... | PS4

What Gamers Should Be Doing While They Wait For Kingdom Hearts 3

18m ago - Kingdom Hearts 3 is one of the most anticipated games at the moment, with rumours first appearing... | PS3

Rare Replay Review | Atomix

18m ago - "Rare Replay is a casual option for Rare's semi-fans that have an Xbox One. If you can ignore its... | Xbox One