Bobby Kotick has often been gaming public enemy number one due to his very public favouring of paid subscription for Call of Duty; while I am also very reluctant to have to pay more for a game, might this not actually be such a crazy idea?
yes for stock holders
When you're already paying for it and you have to pay even more, definitly not. Xbox Live isn't too bad because it's best to be paying for something thats worth paying. I realised. That statement made no sense. :/ Besides, I dont pay for XBL. My mum buys it for me every xmas, so I dont mind :P
your mum was sent by MS. She is a robot.
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!! !!!
Good old Bobby K, He is a true businessmen. You make something that is off the carts with the gameing communtity, then charge them for everything you can. the man really knows how to make the company money.
It depends on what is being offered for the money spent. If I can get a guarantee of no cheating, free DLC and constant updates, plus depending on the price, then ok.
This is exactly my point, there are way to many games nowadays that get hacked and problems just not fixed (*cough* COD). If they can guarantee me that for something like a dollar or two a month then I'd be willing.
but you should have to pay every month to play a hack free game. plus even if they did charge a sub fee it would still get hacked
no think is about time Bobby Kotick stops riping people off. :)
Problem is that if Activision charges $5 a month for COD, then M$ charges for Halo and so on we could be looking at hundreds of dollars a month to play games on line. The hacking and cheating is what we pay Microsoft $60 dollars for to regulate and maintain the online experience, and we all know how Sony handles people hacking their systems. A pay to play scheme would be to expensive on a console unless you dedicate yourself to only playing one game online.
But in general, at any one time, do you really play that many games online? Maybe 3 or 4 max. And once you get bored of one you can just break off your subscription and replace it with another one.
I do get bored of games and put them on the back burner, but then I go back to them SO I would either have to keep the subscription open so I can play anytime or hope that I can start it back up again instantly to play.
I refuse to do pay to play. Even for MMOs I struggle with the idea to pay as does my wallet.
Are you kidding me? Absolutely not, especially because I'm paying Xbox to play right now.
It all depends on the game in question for me. While I wouldn't pay a dime for a subscription based Fps,I can find the money to pay for other types of subscription based games.
Hope Activision makes the subscription model for COD a reallity...then we shall see it die. It's OK to me, since I think Battlefield is a way better game.
Depends. As of right now, it's not a good idea. 1. Call of Duties release way too frequently for a subscription service. 2. Paying for P2P connections? Everyone knows that true dedicated servers aren't a good option for consoles. Consoles are about ease of use and no one on console is patient enough to scroll through a server list to get into a match. P2P matchmaking is the best option here and charging for that would not be a great idea. This would be a good idea to prevent cheaters at least on the consoles (by controlling every match on a dedicated server), but right now it's not a good move for the customer or Activision.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.