Home Gaming Will you pay extra to play Black Ops online? What if Halo and Medal of Honor were charging as well?

Will you pay extra to play Black Ops online? What if Halo and Medal of Honor were charging as well?

1 min read
29

Black Ops

It’s the next big evil that we all know is coming and are still refusing to admit, in the next few years it is pretty much guaranteed that Activision will begin charging for online play in Call of Duty but the big question is whether we will pay or not.

Personally I completely understand why they want to charge for multiplayer gaming but at the same time if Black Ops is released requiring a monthly subscription fee I seriously doubt I would pick up a copy. Not with Medal of Honor being released and looking just as awesome.

However according to an article on MCV today EA are also considering a subscription model for it’s online play as are Microsoft with Halo. The worst of the lot would be Microsoft who are already charging for Xbox Live which would mean we would have to pay 3 times to get our game on in Halo Reach. Once for the title, once to Xbox Live and once for the multiplayer component.

I do think we as gamers need to fight back against this by refusing to pay and rather moving our online gaming to other available titles such as Transformers 2, Kane & Lynch 2 or even the older titles like MW2 and Halo 3.

However gamers have already proven that we’ll pay anything to get our fix so I don’t hold out much hope.

Last Updated: August 11, 2010

29 Comments

  1. Werner

    August 11, 2010 at 09:04

    “However gamers have already proven that we’ll pay anything to get our fix so I don’t hold out much hope.”

    Yes… the boycott against MW2 on PC and L4D2 is proof enough. I’m one of the few that sticked to my guns regarding MW2 and if BlackOps has a subscription model then I’m not buying.

    If they do however bring it out like this, what incentives will they have to make me want to pay to play online? If it’s the same as MW or MW2, then I see no worth in it for me. MMORPG’s like WoW, AoC has been going strong for many a year but that’s a MMORPG that has hours and hours of gameplay in it (quests, raids what-nots). What will BlackOps bring that will make it worth the while?

    But at the end of the day, the stupid consumer will just suck it up and pay in anyways… said consumer should start to realize that the power lays with him and not the publisher. Viva consumer!!… or whateva 🙂

    Reply

  2. Aequitas

    August 11, 2010 at 09:52

    I wouldn’t pay to play an FPS online. Just like i wouldn’t have paid if Starcraft 2 was a pay-to-play game.

    I can understand leaving the MP out of a game, and putting it in as a once off code, trying to get some money from the game once it hit’s the second hand market … but a monthly fee … no way.

    Reply

  3. Jimmytheediblewyrm

    August 11, 2010 at 09:59

    I am pretty much completely against the idea. As you say, I already paid for the game, and I already paid for my XBL sub, and now you want me to pay to play the game aswell? Go play in traffic.

    If these chaps brought out regular DLC, map packs for example, they would easily make a truckload of cash, just look at MW2, even at 1200ms points a map pack, they still sold like there was no tomorrow.

    Reply

  4. al360

    August 11, 2010 at 10:56

    my sentiments exactly viva comsumer and
    down with publishers that think they can get away it
    and the same goes for those who actually forked out for
    stuff like that

    Reply

  5. Bobby Kotick is lactose intollerant

    August 11, 2010 at 13:18

    I definitely wouldn’t… but after Activision made a killing from their overpriced DLC over the last few months, it’s pretty clear that our fellow gamers are ignoramusses who will. What happened to all those sods who were going to boycott the PC version of Modern Warfare 2? Let’s face it the vast majority gamers are sheep, and they’re getting exactly what they deserve. :getlost:

    Anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if Microsuck pushes for Halo subscription :getlost:

    Reply

  6. Maxiviper

    August 11, 2010 at 13:43

    Bastards just want to make more money$$, You’d think they’d get enough money for selling the games but no, It’s not like they have to make a game a few million times over to be sold, They make the game ONCE AND hit the COPY button and sell the copies of the game they made.

    Reply

  7. Grant Hinds

    August 11, 2010 at 13:46

    This would be reeedonkulous.

    Reply

  8. Bobby Kotick

    August 11, 2010 at 13:59

    I really hate it that these bastards (THQ, EA, Activision etc.) consider “pre-owned a problem”, and they’re being really sneaky in trying to kill of the second-hand market. It really makes me want nerdrage and nerdslam someone through a table. :angry:

    Reply

  9. koldFU5iON

    August 11, 2010 at 14:03

    While I agree with you that paying for online subscriptions is ridiculous and would certainly turn sour should they pursue it I do still think that there are lot’s of things being overlooked.

    Firstly Development time for games is usually 2-3 years (depending on the game and the engines it’s using) the company(developer i.e. bungie, IW, Naughty Dog) will make no money in that time and will still have to pay out certain costs including: Rent, Salaries, Equipment, Brand Agencies, etc. all the money that goes into that generally comes from the Publisher (Activision, EA, Ubisoft) the get there money based on revenues of other games and fit the bill for a lot of the studio’s expenditures.

    It costs huge amounts of money to develop a game, and that’s before the marketing costs are brought in i.e. POS, Advertising, Production, Shipping etc. it all adds up.

    I think the biggest problem that developers are facing and according to the Game Theory video is the fact that while they’re making great games these games are not reaching the broad audience i.e. casual gamers. Publishers will end up making a loss on a title and we’ve seen it happen before therefore other titles like Call of Duty will “in theory” start paying for costs on other titles that maybe weren’t as successful.

    another point I’ve seen is that everyone is blaming MS for being greedy with charging for XBL and the game, just remember they’re the service provider and if the publisher wants to charge for online that is not a concern of MS’s. I think a medium needs to be met and that maybe MS should be re-looking their licencing policies and I actually agree with Bobby (the real one) that MS should be giving money back to publishers that are responsible for keeping XBL alive, that should ease costs on publishers as well.

    Reply

  10. Bobby Kotick

    August 11, 2010 at 14:09

    What they don’t seem to understand is that there is a benefit to maintaining the second-hand market, because it actually helps sustain the console games market (in general). Not to mention that second-hand games actually help to lessen console game piracy.

    Bah! This is just more of the case of publishers and even some developers becoming increasingly greedy.

    Reply

  11. Nick de Bruyne

    August 11, 2010 at 14:10

    If they really want to do something like this, they will need to look at making the game completely free, and then only having a monthly subscription fee, not both. It’s BS either way, but that makes more BS sense than the other BS idea.

    Reply

  12. Bobby Kotick is real

    August 11, 2010 at 14:22

    Whatchyou mean Bobby (the real one)? Don’t make me put a cap in youse ass. 😛

    KoldFusion, the development cycle for games are actually very similar to what happens in the film industry, and although comparisons between the two are not always valid, the fact that a movie’s release (much like a game’s) hinges on costly pre-production, production, post-production, marketing and advertising, just imagine if the latest James Cameron movie DVD release came with a subscription service. You buy the DVD, but before you can watch it you need to authenticate the contents of the disc, and to watch it on more than one occasion, you have to pay a fee.

    Reply

  13. Bobby Kotick wears a thong

    August 11, 2010 at 14:31

    Greed is ultimately at work here, because not only are the developers pushing for digital distribution of games and additional content -dlc- (which cuts out the potentially costly disc testing and manufacturing phase), but they’re also keen on capitalizing (and monopolizing) on the multiplayer side of games. It’s a different matter if they allow users to have free non-ranked MP -LAN etc. (whereas the official MP is charged for, but they’re clearly trying to squeeze us for every penny).

    Quite frankly, we’re on the verge of the gaming industry finding itself in a very sticky situation, and that’s not good news for gaming connoisseurs. :ermm:

    Reply

  14. Christo Le Grange

    August 11, 2010 at 15:40

    Publishers are losing out cuz like you said, failing to attract the casual gamers AND the physical time hardcore gamers spend on a single game, be it due to them wanting to play at a competition level or whatever, point is, they are losing out “game time” that could be spent on other game in SP or MP.YOU SHOULD NOT BE HATED ON FOR LIKING A GAME MORE THAN THE AVERAGE USER!

    An option is charging for MP across the board. Its a better idea, i think, than charging per game..on Pc and Ps3…like XBL GoLD subs.
    ..and Due to our capitalistic society MS won’t give up profits for other publishers.

    ….although it is an idea…if they can agree to enable an across the board “multiplayer access membership fee” for each platform…or something similar, than everyone would be ‘kind of’ happy

    anyways, trying to satisfy all the stakeholders will be difficult, but some publisher needs to come up with a pricing model, that will satisfy ‘most’ stakeholders, then the rest can follow suit…
    but I think penalising JUST the consumer, or JUST the retail outlets or JUST the distributer is unfair, and ‘uncapitalistic’ and unethical.

    sacrifices has to be made in the coming months/years, but I dont see why the industry cannot work towards a common goal were all stakeholders do not have to suffer.
    thats my hippy argument.

    ….OR….more aggressively, create a “CALL OF DUTY MP EXPERIENCE CLUB” (or some other), then you can play whatever COD for as long as you want for R200 a month.PROBLEM SOLVED…MARKET SEGMENTATION!!

    Reply

  15. Jose

    August 11, 2010 at 23:22

    This is why i pirate games 🙂 they try to screw me over at every possible chance so why should I give a flying fudge that I’m doin the same

    Reply

  16. Gavin Mannion

    August 12, 2010 at 03:31

    That logic makes absolutely no sense.. all it means is that us valid gamers get even further screwed because you have some misplaced sense of self importance.

    If you like the game pay for it else play something else. There is no middle ground

    Reply

  17. erivera1994

    August 12, 2010 at 08:08

    Ok there is no way i will pay to play my games that i have already paid $60 for just to play online. ok you guys are so greedy for money that your gonna make people pay for a mode inside a game they already paid for. Also for 360 people who already pay for online. Activision makes me sick. I wont buy the game, i’ll probably rent it for the Campaign.

    Reply

  18. easy

    August 12, 2010 at 13:46

    @koldfusion – the consumer should not be accountable for long development cycles nor carry the cost. subscription costs for a service is one thing, but a subscription for a product that was traditionally free is obvious greed imo.

    windows & osx have relatively (vista ahem) short dev cycles and no subscription costs, yet are infinitely more complex. fair enough most iterations are ‘tart-ups’, but the principle remains the same. same goes for most software… games are considered software too.

    matter of opinion at the end of the day

    Reply

  19. Aaron Colas

    August 12, 2010 at 16:33

    Pathetic.

    Reply

  20. Riprie

    August 12, 2010 at 17:00

    It would be pretty weird if they started charging for the service al of the sudden considering they have been talking about free service. If a game would be a subscription based than it should be announced from the beginning of the development.

    Reply

  21. Bobby Kotick is enjoying UFC 2010

    August 12, 2010 at 17:26

    Not really, because there’s nothing stopping them from slapping a “This game requires internet connectivity and multiplayer will require a monthly subscription” sticker on the box. In fact, as long as they advertise it on the wrapper, there’s very little you as a consumer can do, except vote with your wallet.

    The real kicker will be if they try to enable a subscription service on the back catalogue, that would be unethical and actually illegal. I doubt they’d be that stupid though, because gamers can be a crazed bunch.

    Reply

  22. E.V.

    August 12, 2010 at 17:28

    Wait until they require you to register your game to your system making the second hand and rental market breathe their last breaths.

    Reply

  23. Bobby Kotick

    August 12, 2010 at 17:38

    Back in the day, Sony actually considered introducing such draconian DRM for their PS3 disks. Basically your games would be tied (exclusively) to a specific console, which would have really sucked if your console died, and you’re left with a book case filled with paperweights (or had to deal with their customer care line). Microsoft were also looking at something similar for both dlc and disks, but then the RROD issue broke the news, and presumably they had to shelve it (although now you can move dlc and activate them on a second console provided you wait a year).

    Who would have thought RRODing xboxes saved the gaming industry and its consumers 😛

    Reply

  24. Happy Gamer

    August 25, 2010 at 06:16

    I would think that if people who play on the Xbox 360. who have to pay monthly Fee to even get online play should not have to pay another monthly fee to enjoy the great game play of this game because we as X box players think it would be horrible option. why would they need to suck more money out of people knowing that they are going to be getting enough money through the distribution of black ops. i certainly would not pay extra to play online while i have to pay for the game pay for my live. then i would have to pay more to play online. if it was a 1 time payment it would be okay not month to month :angry: Dont do that ur goin to piss alot of people off

    Reply

  25. Thinker

    September 1, 2010 at 00:33

    Ok. So by reading all this I have found we are all in agreement.
    1. We don’t want to pay 3 times to play the stinkin’ game.
    2. The companies are going to screw themselves over by chargin monthly p2p fees. And
    3. After all this complaining, nothing will change.

    Like Gavin said, stop complaining (not that I don’t) and if you like the game, buy it. If not, don’t. It’s that simple. I do think any company that starts charging is obviously going to lose some fans, but in the long run, I don’t think it will be enough for them to care about. They will probably be making more money than ever and, at this point, it seems that’s all they care about.

    The video game industry is turning into the fast-food industry; loading their products with things people love and ultimatly, think they need, and charging a ton for it.

    Reply

  26. PowerFul

    September 14, 2010 at 06:08

    WTF is this HELL NOOOOOOOO im not fucking buying.. why people in this world gotta be soooooooooooooo fucking gay… its just a fucking game… 60 bucks for game 20 or 50 for live xbox accessories dlc maps another 20 WTF go suck a fucking DIG :devil:

    Reply

  27. Zeeeeeeeeeee

    November 8, 2010 at 14:25

    Now this is why I play halo, Bungie aren`t whores 3 decent maps for 800 MS points, Nbd, hell they even made one free after the release of the second one, and they decreased the price of the second one somewhere down the road, If Treyarch is smart, They`ll just do infinity ward did, Make shit dlc maps, and price them ridiculously high

    Reply

  28. stunz1234

    December 6, 2010 at 08:24

    im sick of this shit!!! i for one like the play multiple games and now hearing this i might have to pay a monthly charge on each thats just crzy like they alrdy dont make enough at 65$ each FUCK THEM :angry:

    Reply

  29. fuck starcraft2

    October 15, 2013 at 08:13

    I paid good money to buy starcraft 2 and the expansion, then I finally got logged onto blizzard and after playing the first few missions these greedy fuckheads are telling me that I have to upgrade to continue!!!!! Can someone tell me what is going on?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Microsoft Replacing 1 vs 100 With Full House Poker

Remember how 1 vs 100 was going to revolutionise the way people spend their evening as wel…