Analyst: Gamers have to accept that online multiplayer is going subscription
"Outside of MMORPGs and Xbox LIVE, playing games online has been a relatively free experience that gamers have grown accustomed to enjoying. Now that appears to be changing with EA introducing initiatives like Project Ten Dollar and comments from the CEO of Activision wishing for a subscription fee for Call of Duty. Wedbush Analyst Michael Pachter has also been calling for publishers to move towards subscription-based online gaming as well and now he says, "Gamers, used game purchasers and new game purchasers, just have to accept that online multiplayer is going subscription. It's got to."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
mightydog013191d ago

Yeah right and see how much money they lose

Pandamobile3191d ago

They'll get a lot more money from subscriptions than they would from the one time purchase of $60, even with much lower sales.

Queasy3191d ago

Then they need to drop game prices at the very least.

deadreckoning6663191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

Sure, I'll accept it..I just won't pay :)

@Das Bunker- I like Killzone 2. I like COD4. I like BC2 and I like Halo 3. Is that a problem for you???

Boody-Bandit3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

I will simply start playing single player games and just meet up with my friends like back in the old days and go head to head. There is no way I am paying a subscription to play online. Greedy devs and publishers are going to ruin the industry if they try to push this nonsense.

Pandamobile3191d ago

I don't know why so many people are disagreeing with me. Do a bit of math. If Activision charged $15 for a monthly Call of Duty subscription fee, and a million people paid for that for a full year, that's a lot of pure revenue.

I'm not endorsing this in any way, but for greedy, money hungry companies like Activision, I can see why they'd want to do it.

Darkstorn3191d ago


I'll bet you that developers are not behind the move to subscription based online play. Virtually every money making scheme in gaming history has been a result of publishers, not developers, trying to cash in.

After all, publishers have the clout to pressure devs into almost anything (needless DLC, releasing games before they're finished, etc.)

inception1233191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

lol i'm not paying full price for half a game(single player) just to have to pay more to get access to the other half(multiplayer) of it. i hope one dev does this just to show others how bad their game will flop by doing this. these devs need to learn gamers control everything in the game industry.

Persistantthug3191d ago

Because not only will they sell MANY fewer units, but then the game players will shift to the other FPS's that are free....and we all know the market isn't short on those.

Why would I pay MONTHLY for some arcade shooting, peer to peer game with bugs, glitches, and imbalances? That would make no sense.

evrfighter3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )


You don't even need to break a million to have it be successful.


FFXI has hovered around the 500k user base mark for just as long as WoW's been around. @ $15/month this is roughly $7.5 million a month. The only costs are server bandwidth/maintenence and the people needed to take of these.

We all know there would be somewhere in between 500k-1 million fools that wouldn't even think twice about it. That's all they need.

It's a very lucrative business. Pachter must be really out of touch with gaming if he just realized this now.

Kotick knows this. HOWEVER. Console gaming in its current form won't allow it. It would be very very hard to push subscription based gaming on consoles when the console makers themselves are charging to play online. (Sony's taking it slow but expect it to happen with ps4).

Hence why he's calling to Dell and HP to make an easy to use, plug and play pc that connects straight to your TV. It gets rid of licensing issues to use the pc platform.

Persistantthug3191d ago

That's a failure, evrfighter.

We're not talking about some other "Joe Shmoe" here...we're talking about CALL OF know, the game with the big budgets and even bigger (expensive) advertisements.

Not to mention, Console gamers can't be counted on to pay monthly consistently for an arcade shooter when BATTLEFIELD, METAL OF HONOR, and HALO and every other FPS is free.

pfft...subscription? I'd like to see them try.

Oh, and the icing on this bad cake.....INFINITY WARD was ran out of the building, across the street to Activision's competition.

Subscription Call Of Duty Will be hilariously bad....hilarious.

sikbeta3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

IF that ever happen... Single Player FTW!!!

I'd pay If I want to, but not IF I'm forced to pay for whatever crappy game with some piece of on-line when the game still cost $60...

evrfighter3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

Ok Persian. You're saying that out of the close to 20 million people that bought MW2. NO ONE would buy it subscription?

what kind of land of fairies and rainbows are you living in. Be realistic. I'm one of the very few here at n4g that was very vocal about my disappointment with MW2 (even before it launched). I'm currently still holding strong to my no mw2 purchase for my pc.

I would GUARANTEE at least a million subscription based CoD sales because the demographic for this game seem to be idiots. we all know that Idiots come by the truckload on consoles.

PotatoClock3190d ago

"Hence why he's calling to Dell and HP to make an easy to use, plug and play pc that connects straight to your TV. It gets rid of licensing issues to use the pc platform."

Lol a plug and play PC that connects to your tv. What a great idea Kotick! But I think you might be a little late with that idea cause they have these strange technology thingys called consoles :\

Theonetheonly3190d ago

on pc.


you can quote me.

DaTruth3190d ago

I Don't usually agree with Evrfigher, but if they can find 20 million idiots to pay $60 for that game now in its current state, they can find 1 million idiots to pay to play it!

More than likely they would sell it like it is to the 20 million idiots now and then charge the 1 million idiots for some elite crap with some extra features! Why lose 19 million idiots???

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 3190d ago
DasBunker3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

only activision game ive got was guitar hero III and was a hugeee mistake... oh and i rented MW2 once.. played a 'lil MP and laughed at how bad it was, cant believe people play it as its the beginning and end of MP online..

im glad ive never bought a COD game.. generic as hell..

killzone, halo, battlefield are still miles a head of this turd

"Then they need to drop game prices at the very least. "

lol'd @ people getting the lube ready, theres no "at least" ..they shouldnt charge extra for online PERIOD


i despise COD.. is that a problem for you?

JsonHenry3191d ago

Companies have to accept they will go broke on this.

princejb1343191d ago

it would be stupid
if they was to lower the game price than yea i might consider it
one of the key features why i prefer ps3 over xbox is because online is free
free of charge to play

Gray-Fox3191d ago

If it costs a subscription for EVERY game, I guess I won't game anymore (or as much). That's outrageous! Most games use P2P anyway.

First one to do it: Activision

Just you f*cking watch/

jerethdagryphon3191d ago

at the headline

no we dont simply put

online gaming requires 2 things games and PLAYERs
with all the cracker teams out there do you really think 3rd party servers will be an issue...

cause thats what will likly happen

game makers cannot be allowed to let there greed grow unhindered were already charded for ondisc dlc

and they want to kill used game trade....

its greed and it must end

Inside_out3191d ago

I really hope they try Activision MAY try it but I guarantee it won't last long. This will give the competition a leg up on not only there game but the consoles as well. No way the PC community will pay to People will stop buying consoles all together. Same for EA. They have a monopoly right now in sports games, that will change when they try and muscle all the gamers for more money than the extreme prof fits these idiots are making already.

As for Pachter, I completely disagree with his assessment on this. They don't HAVE to, they WANT too. MW2 has been one of the most, if not the most successful launch of a game EVER. Look how much they made on the DLC. Pachter is really pushing there agenda here and while I usually agree with his ideas, on this one he is bought and paid for I afraid. Trying to make it look like they are losing any money on this is RIDICULOUS!!! It has been reported that 1 million units sold covers the cost of the game MW2 has sold 20+ million. Pachter, more than anyone, KNOWS this and acts like they have to charge more money...CRIMINALS.

They will try and then they will forget about it. Think of how many gamers would stick to Activision if they remain free or vise versa, what if Battlefield was free and COD was not. Of course, if behind close doors they sign an agreement to ALL charge for on line then that would be different. That could be very well what they are doing...THQ, Ubisoft, EA and Activision have all said they will explore pay to play. Price fixing is nothing new to these guys, look at the price of new games, they are all the same...CO-WINKY-DINK...I think

georgeenoob3191d ago

Analysts need to STFU.

Why would we want to accept something that's predicted by analysts but denied by publishers?

Spenok3189d ago

You mean denied by developers, but i got your point. xD

badz1493191d ago

pushing this issue so hard now? they know gamers don't like it and it's like they are trying to push it to actually happen NOW! what do they get from this? fame?

jetlian3190d ago

thats easy money!!! they tell people what kind of stock to buy and they get a percent. Pach wants this to happen

spacetattoo3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

As gamers, we can put our fanboyism behind us and unite together. we have all the power to shut down companies that want to rape us over the coals. I say any company starts this, we first send unprecedented amount of letters to the console holder, publisher, programmers, analysts, bobby kotick, douche bag that started this chant to push pay to play.

Second, boycott games that push this bull.

Third, hackers this is your golden chance to do something good for man kind. Just hack the crap out of any game that uses pay to play.
I mean make it so bad that no one, I mean no one will play the game anymore.

Forth, buy the hell out of games that don't do pay to play. Well make sure there good.

Fifth, we need to stop fighting and come together on this issue.

Also the more ideas, the more we can get through to more people. Ideas to get casual that will pay to play for no apparent reason involved.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3189d ago
MxShade3191d ago

I don't think it's a change the online multiplayer community will accept.

Queasy3191d ago

It will either be something they grow to accept (over a long period of time) or something that could do serious harm to the industry.

Graey3191d ago

I vote serious harm.

To all advocating this wake up and open your eyes. It won't stop there, remember how downloadable content was described the same way. If you give them an inch they will take a mile.

I swear they pull this shit..and its on.

Queasy3191d ago

Yeah, that's some serious BS right there buddy.

saint_john_paul_ii3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

"Analyst: Gamers have to accept that online multiplayer is going subscription"

GAMER: Analysts have to accept that charging for an online multiplayer subscription would mean the collapse of the gaming market.

STGuy10403191d ago

It would mean the collapse of the online multiplayer market, not necessarily the collapse of the entire industry.

PirateThom3191d ago

Yes and no.

The past crash of the video game market was made by expensive prices for low quality software so people stopped buying, if people stop buying games for multiplayer, that's a large percentage of the market.

Single player will flourish, it always does, but it will have an impact. You need to make a Killzone 3 to make a Last Guardian or a Halo Reach for a Fable 3.

nickjkl3191d ago

yes because people buy first person shooters for teh plot

Incognegro3191d ago (Edited 3191d ago )

If this were to happen, I'd see an inverse domino effect happen. It would probably effect the developers more so than it would the industry as a whole. There will be developers that will promote their games by iterating that it's FREE to play. Kinda similar to PSN to XBL. But in this case, it'll be a bigger selling point for franchises than a console. Since there are more developers/publishers than consoles, and if more firms than just Activision and EA decide to go this route, those expenses just add up. People will really have to decide what developer/publisher they like more in terms of online gameplay and support if they choose to go the route of the subscription.

But instead of more developers/publishers going this route, I see a lot more taking a wait and see method, and if they choose not to embrace it as soon as other giants, their games might take a higher spike in sales due to the fact they won't charge for online play. Also, there's the possibility that XBL and PSN+ will try to do a package deal with the companies that go towards this pay to play mantra. They may bump up their own subscription fees to like $5 or $10, but the extra fees will go to the other companies, which would probably benefit them just as much, if not more due to the fact that not all of the subscribers play their games to begin with. So even if someone that may like Activision's Call of Duty franchise more, they're helping EA and other companies that are included in this package deal. Either way, I really don't like it. There's already too many subscription deals to go around and there's no way that all of these can exist together.

Alos883191d ago

If some gamers are that moronic, then let them put themselves under the poverty line for no good reason.