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

Examiner.com
"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."

[mightydog01]

Yeah right and see how much money they lose

[Pandamobile]

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

[Queasy]

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

[deadreckoning666]

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-Bandit]

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.

[Pandamobile]

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.

[Darkstorn]

@Brutallyhonest-

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.)

[inception123]

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.

[Persistantthug]

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.

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

[evrfighter]

@persian

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

example.

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.

[Persistantthug]

That's a failure, evrfighter.

We're not talking about some other "Joe Shmoe" here...we're talking about CALL OF DUTY....you 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.

[rockleex]

They're full of sh*t!

[sikbeta]

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...

[evrfighter]

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.

[PotatoClock]

"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 :\

[Theonetheonly]

on pc.

never.

you can quote me.

[DaTruth]

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???

[DasBunker]

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

@Redneckoning

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

[JsonHenry]

Companies have to accept they will go broke on this.

[princejb134]

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-Fox]

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/

[jerethdagryphon]

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_out]

I really hope they try that...lol. 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 play...lol. 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 completely...lol. 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 not...lol

[georgeenoob]

Analysts need to STFU.

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

[Spenok]

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

[badz149]

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?

[jetlian]

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

[spacetattoo]

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.

[Spenok]

I can only imagine.

[MxShade]

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

[Queasy]

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.

[Graey]

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.

[Queasy]

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

[saint_john_paul_ii]

"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.

[STGuy1040]

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

[PirateThom]

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.

[nickjkl]

yes because people buy first person shooters for teh plot

[Incognegro]

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.

[Alos88]

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

[mrv321]

PC gamers don't need to worry... they'll hack EVERYTHING.

I've heard stories of PC gamers hacking themselves BY MISTAKE.

[PirateThom]

No, gamers won't accept it.

We may troll each other over games, consoles, hell, even online services but the one thing absolutely no one will accept is separate subscriptions for all games.

Publishers and developers need to make us want to keep buying their games, they need to offer us incentives to buy add ons and they need to make the game worth our time.

When Activision, and it will be Activision, take this plunge, they'll soon find Call of Duty isn't as appealing as it once was.

[TheColbertinator]

And they could of course make quality games.I got GTA3 used a few years back and I have bought every single GTA I could brand new.That goes for Naughty Dog and bioware games as well.All brand new because I respect their game quality so I wanted a first day purchase.

[DaBadGuy]

Exactly. Sometimes yes we fight each other, but then again we have a situation like a special episode in a cartoon where the good guys and the bad guys and the wii crowd join forces to defeat a greater evil, the evil Kotick. It's like if GI Joe, The Autobots and He-Man banded together to destroy Cobra, The Decepticons, and Skeletor, except Kotick is all 3 combined! The ultimate evil works at Activision and it must be stopped. GAMERS! ROLL OUT!

[Graey]

well said.

very well said.

[Coheno]

...out of many. When it happens to CoD, I'll be swiching to one of the many other FPSs!

[bjornbear]

eventually it will be inevitable.

its just sad. well im not a big fan of multiplayer, so no big loss, its just too bad we have to pay not only for the game, but to play the game as well -__-

+ how is it going to work if i have 10 mp games? pay for everyone? GTFO

[Omar91]

you know as much as we intelligent more educated gamers will never pay for online.. ever.. there are still those gamers who will. and no matter what we say the gaming industry thinks they have our balls tied to a yarn. no matter what there will still be idiots paying for online. theres going to be at least one.

[liquidus118]

Or rather, at least one million.
Sadly I believe you're right, though it will only happen with CoD. Other game's aren't big enough and the players not stupid enough to fall for it.

[Chnswdchldrn]

i'll just hang out over here with valve who has an amazing community, amazing games, free online,constant support for games in terms of free updates and good deals for their games, mod support, dedicated servers, and no plan for a subcsription for online gaming.

[edoman20]

what should i care for a retarded analyst that didnt even enjoy games tell me what to accept or dont?

and not ill not pay for MP im already paying for the f**king game

[CrippleH]

These analyst need to suck a dic.

[Darkstorn]

How is the analyst 'retarded?' I think this is the road that online gaming is going to take, unfortunately. I suppose you disagree with his entire premise?

[DA_SHREDDER]

Ive been gaming for the past 24 years of my life. The only time I ever paid monthly for something was for mmo's cause they are huge, and the games run off the servers. Im not paying monthly for a piece of garbage like COD and their TDM when games like MAG running full blown wars with hundreds of people for free. The day they start charging is the day I quit gaming, and will stuck playing everything from the NES to the ps3 days. Ill be fine, thats about 2 decades worth of the best games ever created. The games out these days aren't even worth buying full price let alone full price with a monthly fee.

[Darkstorn]

@DA_SHREDDER-

This article is the opinion of an ANALYST. It doesn't matter if you stop gaming as a result of these tentative actions on the part of publishers. This article is in reference to a new system of funding multiplayer gaming, not your opinion on the subject.

[ZombieAutopsy]

PC gaming here i come.

What they should do that would be a LITTLE more acceptable is have the pubs make things like an EA pass or Acti pass that allows you to play all of their games online for 10$ a year but if its individual games they can suck my toe.

Oh yea and if this happens you will see a HUGE increase in games being hosted over internet LAN's.

[madara0sama]

No we don't.

[cougarlane37]

YEA RIGHT im going to "accept" it. plus, there hasnt even been ANY games that require a subscription except MMOS. so really until they actually implement a subscription, im gonna keep playing for free

[Veni Vidi Vici]

If they start charging to play MP, there will be a HUGE increase in piracy. They are just going to make it worse with a move like this. There's no way I'll pay for it. I refuse to pay for MMORPG's like WoW and I can understand why they would charge a small fee for that. There's NO reason to charge for MP on FPS's since gamers foot the bill for servers (unless they F*CK us over like MW2) and there's no additional service provided by the game maker.

[DeeBee]

Actually this move will not increase piracy, people will just stop buying the games that require a subscription to play online. Of course when the games flop piracy will be blamed because "analysts" say that us gamers actually WANT to pay a monthly fee to play our games, since the game flopped it has to be piracy! Just like the kids who do bad things, it's not bad parenting, it's violent video games to blame.

This is the industry we support, they NEVER stand up and admit they screwed up and didn't do what they should have done ... no, they find a scapegoat, and piracy is the one they turn to every time their money making schemes fail.

[Beahmscream]

If this were to ever happen, my friends and I would be more than happy to pirate games off my PC with absolutley no remorse. Lesson of the day - Greed is bad.

[Seijoru]

People said DLC would never go over well back in '04. Look at it now.

[ChronoJoe]

That'd mean gamers would only play, and presumably buy. One online FPS.

Doesn't seem to make econimic sense. Unless they can push out fantastic buy singleplayer campaigns too, so people actually buy there games in the first place.

[robedias27]

The love of money is the root of all evil. Good grief. as if Activision and EA aren't making enough money. I've been a gamer nearly 20 years, and it seems to me that the bigger audience gaming gets, the more stupid ideas developers/publishers get. If they want to make more money, figure out a way to stop piracy, don't punish paying customers. It's just like the government trying to find alternative routes for income instead of fixing their budget in the first place.

And whoever wrote this report is just adding fuel to this fire of ridiculousity. And by the way, i'm completely happy with my gaming collection...and i will NEVER buy a game that requires a subscription...(okay, so i DID buy Hellgate:London when i heard that it was going free-to-play). I'll gladly stick to my pre-2010 titles.

[nation120]

this would be a really stupid move for activision if they do it with black ops.....on ps3 socom 4 comes out at the same time so ps3 gamers would play that fps...for xbox people halo reach also comes out at the same time so really its a lose lose situation for activision if they go through with it.

[jdktech2010]

They won't do it for BO....they've said as much because one it's suicide when your going up against Reach and KZ 3 a few months after.

And two, there's a lot of negativity out there....if they're going to do it, they'll wait until it dies down and just kinda ease it out there and hope people bite

[dragonyght]

lol what a timing right were cod about to fell on it own knife

[SweetIvy]

... Mh, I honestly have mixed feeling about this one.
On one hand people already pay for game, on the other though games production costs are very high and keep rising and adding online support may be hard, especially for non blockbuster productions.

I don't know how it is on the 360 but my personal online esperience on the PS3 for many online games hasn't been very positive as far as lag is concerned.
I'm especially thinking about Bioshok 2 and Transformers. I love their multiplayer but the servers are seriously lacking, I would pay a small fee for a good online esperience sine the free one is low quality.
Bad Company 2 and MW2 too however weren't always flawless as well.

[liquidus118]

WE have to accept it? Last time I checked it was us gamers with the money that they need, so maybe THEY need to accept that outside of the CoD community there aren't many gaming community's dumb enough to do this.

[redking315]

I pay for WoW every month because it is an expansive and evolving world. A shooters online component is neither. I'm not paying money every month just to play the same 20 maps over and over.

[DeeBee]

Kind of like Need For Speed World LOL

The Subscription model works well on only a few genres, FPS games, racing games, fighting games are a few that it doesn't.

[Kingdom Come]

There are only a hand-full of developers greedy enough to add subscription to their multiplayers, MMO Developers are understandable, I could understand developers placing subscriptions on any multiplayer game if the money was required to keep the servers running and I loved the game. However, if the company is successful and just plain greedy *Cough Activision Cough* then they have no right asking. I would pay for a select few, definatly the Gears of War titles, I think we all hhav our games we would pay for, whether its Gears, Halo, Killzone, Uncharted, it depends on dedication and perferance...

[anonymouse111335]

I'd be fine with it if it was like a MMO where they add new content to it constantly, but online services are not, you pay for xbox live and then have to pay to play each game? Same with PSN+ it's not going to work and will discourage people to pay for online in the long run because of the added cost, if they do it they best lower the cost of games significantly as well.

[Dannehkins]

Ahem, last time I checked, the customers basically have the final say in the matter. If they don't want something, they cannot force it onto us. I refuse to pay a subscription service and if a couple of high profile games had a subscription service, how the hell can I afford to play them all?

So in conclusion, I do not think I have to accept anything. If they want to squeeze people for every dime they have then that's fine, but they'll kiss my arse before they get my money.

[EinRobot]

It seems to me that they have to accept what we are willing to pay for. We have the money. We have the choice. I cant imagine paying 200 dollars a year just on multiplayer for the various games I play. Game companies are "just going to have to accept that" or look elsewhere for profit.

[EinRobot]

Car Dealer- "This guy paid for this car in full and now he gets to drive around in it for years. Its really hurting new car sales, lets charge them a monthly price to drive with his friends" "Wahhh"

[Dazel]

But the more that join the louder we are heard.

http://www.facebook.com/gro...

[N311V]

Subscription fees for any game have always put me off. I play as often as I can but even then I'd only average 5 to 10 hours a week. With a $20 a month fee that's 50 cents to a dollar an hour I'm paying. Might as well be an arcade in my living room!

[Pootangpie]

heck even MS turned down FF14 because of the subscribtion based fee

[BuIIetproofish_]

Analysts are so funny. They actually think I'd pay to play a single game online.

[hellboy1880]

I would refuse to purchase ANY game that charges a monthly subscription fee to play online. I hope that development and publishing companies will see reason and not proceed with this blatant cash grab on gaming consumers.

I am actually surprised that gamers aren't in open revolt over the mere suggestion of this greedy scheme.

Come on people, don't you pay too much already?

[tiamat5]

I have a PS3, a system with many single player based games. Wouldn't like to lose competitive online play but can live without it. Feel bad for people who play Crackdown 2, LFD2, SCC, Halo, Gears, MW2 and COD games with short or crappy single player campaigns and depend on multiplayer. They will suffer the most from this.

[You Noob]

Gamers: Analyst have to accept that they are a bunch of idiots.

[CryofSilence]

I'll forego online play for non-MMOs (read: non-server based) then. No big loss to me as I enjoy single player experiences the most.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

The only time people have to accept something is when they lay down and take it. People in this world have a problem with standing up for a cause. They would rather just go through the motions.

[MikeTyson]

A piece of chicken > Call of Duty

[jak3y13oy]

They know how to kill games, £40 for xbox live a year + £5 a month = £100 pound a year, and the death of online multiplayer... :'(

[ATi_Elite]

This article must be targeted towards console gamers. Try this crap with PC gamers and you will FAIL.

see how console publishers treat you guys, just like cattle. You pay $60 bucks for a broken laggy glitchy game (COD MW2)and now these leeches wanna charge you monthly to play on line plus Sony and Microsoft charging you for Xbox Live and PSN as well.

F*ck That.

If so then the game better be free or $19.99 plus $14.99 to game for 4 or 6 months.

[jkhan]

So what they are saying is that they are going to charge us US $60-70 or Aussie 100-120 $ for a 6 hours singleplayer game and then they will charge us 10-15 USD or 19-25 AUD for multiplayer. I say NO THANK YOU.

[bunfighterii]

Exactly- if this does happen then the initial cost of a game like MW2 should be reduced to $19.99 AUD. I haven't even played the campaign on it...

[bunfighterii]

If this becomes the case then I'll just no longer play online.

[mirroredderorrim]

I don't have to accept anything. I can blow my brains out if I don't like it, or I can just support single player experiences as I have done for the past 2 and a half decades!

If they want to charge for e-dick (cause to me, that's what most online is about)
Then, they can have it. I'm groaning in sadness, though, cause most of our beloved franchises have become very different compared to the their roots, and I see myself buying less games as time goes on, becoming pickier in the same vein.

Then...when the well runs dry, and they see no other alternative but to charge for a complete single player experience, more than once (hello, Microsoft and hello greedy developers who cut their games in pieces and slang it to us as DLC, bonuses or extras!?)
emphasize the "sell it to you in pieces" business model, I'll completely drop gaming and maybe take up pottery or hunting, or maybe even golf.

Btw, nice 1, examiner. Reporting on Patcher is not news. At least not on N4G, despite the stupid top 10's(seriously? WTF is up with nearly everyone out there attempting to be David Letterman?)the cosplay articles, the youtube videos with no substance, the pathetic blogs like gamerstooge with an agenda.

(never though Jonah Falcon would suck a d***, but apparently he's been sucking on Microsoft's corporate schlong for quite some time now, wonder if he's getting paid?)

Anyway...I apologize for going off topic.

[Ashriel]

fuck no!

"The idea that you can buy Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and play it for 10 hours a week for the rest of your life for free is crazy,"

It's been like this since the first online games, what the fuck is this guy talking about, I can't believe he insist so much with this bullshit.

[The Great Melon]

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

Well... Companies have to accept that they won't get my money.

[NotSoSilentBob]

No we don't have to accept the fact that multiplayer is "gonna" go subscription based. We have the right to speak with our pocket books and that is where it matters to them. I never bought MW2 for PS3 I just borrowed it from a friend and beat the single player, tried the spec ops but found it boring. If it was a pay to play game ohh darn I would have spent 3 hours playing another game instead of online listening to children "pwned, you suck, wow noob". I would rather not pay for that kind of junk.

[jimsondanet]

...is a huge opening for competitors. You start charging for a core experience gamers simply go elsewhere. Unless the kind of content offered in MMO's is on the tables the subscription model simply will not work.

[MadMen]

Kiss Xbox live good bye no way in hell im paying for that then on top of it a subscription fee

however Im willing to best 1st parties dont charge, but those greedy little terds at activision will be more than happy to lead the way

[Doletskaya]

I'll love to see how many idiots there are in the gaming whorld. I for one won't pay for the subscription. Seeing how much money these big game companies are making, I dont think they are in such a hurry to make online multiplayer subcription-based.

[N4BmpS]

Hey Pachter!? F**** you I didn't know paying $60 was free. That's admission to everything that the developers have put on that disc. We, the consumers shouldn't have to accept bullshit... I'll end it here with that. There are quite a few gaming journalist that would agree.

[Finch]

I will accept it sure, but i will be no part of it. I will go back to PC only and hack my way into free online if i have too!

[WikusVanDeMerwe]

I guess I am lucky that I enjoy MMOs and single player games. I swear as much as I've tried I could never get into any game's multiplayer. If subs become the norm I truly am sorry for you guys who like CoD and the likes but having been playing MMOs off and on for almost 7 years I'm pretty much used to the $14.99/month price tag. You all have my sympathy considering all you guys get is the same game with maybe a new map every once and a while which is terrible.

Simplified: I think it's very profitable for companies to have a sub but I think it's highly unfair for console gamers to pay a sub for a $60 game that, when I think about it, can only have so much game play and depth value to start with.

[Psychotica]

No big loss if they do. I would rather play single player games anyways, they are much more satisfying for me.

[JeffGUNZ]

Activision will probably try this first. Christ, they should be paying me monthly to play MW2 with all the glitches and BS in that game.

[Psychotica]

Why are you telling Christ that?

[Anon7349]

Like hell I'm paying for 10+ subscriptions a month, especially when how crappy recent online games have been designed.

Yet again another analyst spews out more ignorant BS.

[ufo8mycat]

It's a shame killing people is illegal. Michael Pachter would be dead right now and so would anyone else or begins charging for this.

[STRAIGHTASL]

i dont accept that! i still refused to pay that stupid subscription. because i have some serious bills instead of this.

[FalconR289]

Last time I checked I have free will. I don't need to accept anything I don't want to.