Modern Warfare 3 pay to play

[Fumz]

Seems those guys are just determined to turn people off...

'Call of Duty' Targets a Monthly Fee - WSJ.com

 

[DarkXeno]

The only way I see this working is if they sell the game for 20 bucks and then a monthly fee of 3 bucks, but this is will happen when pigs grow wings and fly too.

 

[ArtG818]

Goodbye Call Of Duty Hello Battlefield !

 

[MrNeeds]

ermm, did anyone actually read the article? they will charge for people downloading it, if you buy it in the shops then there's no charge, you will have to pay for DLC as normal, and fee payers get DLC free of charge.

 

[xarden]

After two accidental mass-bannings from the online system, (I got roped in on the 2nd one) dont think I'l return and still have to pay extra.

 

[Fumz]

ermm, did anyone actually read the article? they will charge for people downloading it, if you buy it in the shops then there's no charge, you will have to pay for DLC as normal, and fee payers get DLC free of charge.

Yes, I read the article... and that's not what they're saying.

The charge to get the game, whether you buy it in a store, via steam, or any other online retailer is the same: ~ $60.00.

fyi... if you're paying a fee for something, then it isn't free.

If you want new maps, you must pay the fee. If you want new guns, you will probably have to pay the fee. I'll bet the map list that ships with the game is really small and the list of stock guns short.

It's not like we didn't know this was coming. Bobby has been saying it since MW2. The cod franchise is just the suck.

 

[AstaLaVista]

but, don't they charge you now for a new DLC? what is so different now that from this?

Ubisoft has something similar now with Ghost Recon Online... which is nothing more than whatever they ditched from GRFS E10 last year. And now, there is even a rumor that the game will be compatible with Kinnect :shock:

 

[pparks1]

but, don't they charge you now for a new DLC? what is so different now that from this?

Speaking from the Xbox360 point of view, as that is where I play CoD....

In the past, when a map pack came out, you could choose to buy it with MS points, or skip it. If you bought it with MS points, you downloaded it, installed it and could then play those maps. The purchase price was set and was static. Let's say approx $15 worth of MS points.

It sounds like now, if you want that extra content, you will be paying a service fee each month and every so often for your fee, you will get a map pack. But lets say that somebody buys the game on release day for $60, then pays $8 a month for elite content. Lets say 6 months go by before a map pack comes out. So, they spent $8 month x 5 months, so $40...and got maybe some different guns or could better compare stats. Let's say that somebody else buys the game for $40 (on sale) in the 5th month, and opts for the Elite subscription. So, they now pay $8 for the first month. So, at the end of 6 months, player 1 has spent $100 total, and player 2 has spent $48. That doesn't seem right.

 

[Fumz]

but, don't they charge you now for a new DLC? what is so different now that from this?

Ubisoft has something similar now with Ghost Recon Online... which is nothing more than whatever they ditched from GRFS E10 last year. And now, there is even a rumor that the game will be compatible with Kinnect :shock:

What's different is that they will be charging for DLC, and anything else they can think of.

Just unlocked a new gun? Great! Now, in order to actually use it we're going to need $8.00 from you a month... every month... you know, because hosting this game with the uber P2P technology we've simply renamed to iwnet is expensive. :sarc: You see, what's expensive isn't hosting the game, because really we've set it up so you're doing that, what's expensive is keeping track of your progress so we can nickle and dime you every time you advance in the game.

Recall, these are the same people who insisted right up until the black ops launch that "nothing about online play has changed from Modern Warfare... it will be the same"... lying their asses off knowing full well they had implemented iwnet/P2P. Then, to add insult to injury, they further insulted us by claiming that, after we all found out about no more dedicated servers that, "oh no fellas, iwnet isn't P2P! You see, it can't be P2P because we're naming it iwnet.

I would not trust these guys as far as I could spit. One thing is certain: because the game hasn't launched yet, whatever figure they're throwing out, they're lowballing it so they won't look bad. Today, it's, "maybe $3.00 for dlc"... which "sounds" great... after you purchase the game, look for that number to increase and look for it to be an ongoing charge.

Bobby has often said he'd like every Activision game to be like Blizzard games... fee based.

 

[AstaLaVista]

I could be wrong but, it seems to me that Consoles have allowed this behavior to happen, this never happened before when games were being done for PC.

Bottom line is, if you don't pay it and they see that nothing came about, they will immediately take it off, on the other hand, if the majority of console kiddies, get their daddy or mommies credit card out, well...

Part of the reason why get shoddy and unfinished console ports now a day instead of a finish product. This is why we also get Campaigns that barely last 5 hours.

As always, I will wait for the reviews and possibly will pick it up pre-own and only when the game is about 20 bucks... which is what they are worth really (if not less).

 

[DarkXeno]

but, don't they charge you now for a new DLC? what is so different now that from this?

Speaking from the Xbox360 point of view, as that is where I play CoD....

In the past, when a map pack came out, you could choose to buy it with MS points, or skip it. If you bought it with MS points, you downloaded it, installed it and could then play those maps. The purchase price was set and was static. Let's say approx $15 worth of MS points.

It sounds like now, if you want that extra content, you will be paying a service fee each month and every so often for your fee, you will get a map pack. But lets say that somebody buys the game on release day for $60, then pays $8 a month for elite content. Lets say 6 months go by before a map pack comes out. So, they spent $8 month x 5 months, so $40...and got maybe some different guns or could better compare stats. Let's say that somebody else buys the game for $40 (on sale) in the 5th month, and opts for the Elite subscription. So, they now pay $8 for the first month. So, at the end of 6 months, player 1 has spent $100 total, and player 2 has spent $48. That doesn't seem right.

Sounds to me like you have hit the nail on the head. The "Must have"/"Hardcore" group will pay anything to be on top of the newest thing, they know this so they can charge what ever they want and people will pay for it.

 

[Fumz]

I could be wrong but, it seems to me that Consoles have allowed this behavior to happen, this never happened before when games were being done for PC.

Bottom line is, if you don't pay it and they see that nothing came about, they will immediately take it off, on the other hand, if the majority of console kiddies, get their daddy or mommies credit card out, well...

Part of the reason why get shoddy and unfinished console ports now a day instead of a finish product. This is why we also get Campaigns that barely last 5 hours.

As always, I will wait for the reviews and possibly will pick it up pre-own and only when the game is about 20 bucks... which is what they are worth really (if not less).

You're not wrong at all. This is exactly what's going on... and Activision knows it and likes it. Children usually don't muster a good defense... and I'd wager the vast majority of console gaming is done by teens/pre-teens with no real financial stake in anything... so they don't balk and walk away from the game.

 

[simmo]

Bobby has often said he'd like every Activision game to be like Blizzard games... fee based

all I can say is LOL...Activision don't put a fraction of the effort into what they do that Blizzard put into WoW. Hopefully that makes sense.

Makes no diffence to me as I stopped playing all CoD games after the second and I only played the second because I thought they could"nt make two POS in a row.

But they could and they did and furthermore they still are.

 

[Maccman]

COD games have got worse as time goes on in the sense that they are very buggy. The early versions ran great.

 

[pparks1]

I could be wrong but, it seems to me that Consoles have allowed this behavior to happen, this never happened before when games were being done for PC.

Huh....World Of Warcraft is a pay to play game, extremely popular and not available on a console. I don't think consoles are to blame for this.

As always, I will wait for the reviews and possibly will pick it up pre-own and only when the game is about 20 bucks... which is what they are worth really (if not less).

Well, on the flip side, there are tons of people who play hundreds of hours on these games online. Even at $60, it's fractions of cents per hour of gameplay. Pretty reasonably priced entertainment for some.

 

[bryanhock]

Battlefield ftw

 

[xarden]

As always, I will wait for the reviews and possibly will pick it up pre-own and only when the game is about 20 bucks... which is what they are worth really (if not less).

Well, on the flip side, there are tons of people who play hundreds of hours on these games online. Even at $60, it's fractions of cents per hour of gameplay. Pretty reasonably priced entertainment for some.

Thats also true.
Is it really worth the monthly/yearly subscription if you're only going to be a casual 5 hours a week gamer?