News - Call of Duty - Will you pay to play?

[HEXUS]

Subscription-based service for Call of Duty could be closer than we think.

Read more.

[Saracen]

Will you pay to play?

Not a chance.

I realise other people will feel differently, and no doubt some or indeed, perhaps, many, will use subscription-based models for games but I will never, under any circumstances, do so.

My attitude is that I want to know what a game is going to cost me before I get into it. With a subscription, the more you like the game the more you will play, and the more it will cost you. This, of course, has advantages and disadvantages. If the game is bad, it won't get played much and it won't cost a lot to find out .... assuming it's a purely subscription model and the publisher doesn't try to have their cake and eat it by charging you to "buy" the game, then charging you again to play it.

But either way, I want to know the total exposure before I get interested. So, for me, subscriptions? Not a hope in hell. And that's for games, period. Not just CoD.

But like I said, I'd expect other people's mileage to vary.

[Zak33]

I love online games BECAUSE they're free. once I've paid £30 for it.

The ones that offer mammoth online imnteractive worlds are worthy of paying for but the online FPS shooters with tiny maps (by comparison) are not to be paid for.

[roorooroo]

Absolutely no chance.

[razer121]

No hope in hell

[kopite]

I have read pachters reasoning behind this.

An everage single player game will last 30 hours. Taking that into account and from a purely fiscal pov the time spent playing cod equates to 133 million single player games sales.

Activision are basically seeing people playing their game online for free and wanting more money than the obscene pot they made last time. Not only by upping the price of the original game but also charging a lot for the add-ons.

I really want activision to fall on their arse atm imo they are more evil than EA ever were

[cptwhite_uk]

I'm going to try and play devil's advocate here. My gaming habits tend to see me playing 2, maybe 3 games at any one time. For example I'm still playing Supreme Commander (nearly 3 years ago counting), Borderlands (in favour of MW2 which has been nudged out). I would happily pay ~ £3 per month for the privilege of playing these games.

If a standardised system could be implemented wereby you get 12 months subscription when you buy the game, and if you still want to play thereafter you switch to a monthly based subscription model I'd happily go along with that. Maybe it could even be time based (like mobile calls) or whatever.

Running servers and online match making costs money, and if you're still playing a game two years down the line I'd say you've had your money's worth.

How many of us buy a DVD for say £10 and watch it maybe twice (so about £2.50 per hour entertainment), but would buy a multiplayer online game for £25 and expect to provide us with 100+ entertainment? Some Battlefield player stats spring to mind! That surely isn't good financial sense from a developers point of view, and can't be healthy for the industry overall - one of contributing reasons why PC gaming is on the decline I would suspect.

At least with console there's a tendancy towards a short life span to play a game (say 12 months or less, given franchises) and increased sale cost (and not to mention standardised hardware, ohh...and less piracy...) which means developers can expect better returns on their investment in making a game.

I'm just trying to be realistic for the PC gaming industry to survive.

[Iron Sights]

Hell no. This is one of the many reasons why I prefer PC games, cos its mostly free. If games turned subscription based if would put off a lot of people including myself. Online should remain free, those greedy b*******

[wilsonian]

Well from a console player view I can't believe it. I already pay MS £30 a year for the privilege of playing online so why pay an extra £30 just for one game?!?!

I think their trying to take a page out of WOW book with the fee's etc.

[Jaffo]

I'll just play something else; it's not like there's a shortage of FPSs. Subscriptions and paid for DLC can both take a running jump! PC4EVA!

[danroyle]

generally NO However if they were to bring back dedicated servers so i dont have to keep seeing migrating host server every 5 minutes on the pc i'd consider it.

[Digby]

Someone at Activision: "How greedy can we be before people stop paying us?"

[Spud1]

Depends on what you get for your money.

If its all peer to peer and they are simply hosting a stats service, then I would /maybe/ pay £1 a month for such a service.

If they are providing hosted servers, then i'd pay a bit more - £2-£3 a month for it.

If they provide both the above, AND contstant new maps, updates (beyond bug fixes) and the like, i'd be willing to pay a bit more, £5 or so a month.

And so on. I have no problem with paying to play games, IF the fee is justified.

Wow is a prime example - £9 a month to play it, but you get quite a bit for your money. New features, raids, content added almost monthly, fully hosted servers by bliz, in-game support thats mostly pretty good..i'm happy to continue paying.

I know that traditionally we have got a lot of that for free on the PC - but it can't last..it's not a sustainable model really to expect the publisher to provide free servers and hosting forever - doesn't work for them and won't for us in reality. I'd much rather pay them an extra £10 a year or so to ensure that servers will stay up for the game I play, rather than being killed off 2 years down the line when [game]v5 is released to replace v4

[kalniel]

I think pay as you play is a great model - you end up only paying for something you think is worth playing. Far better than stumping up a lot upfront for a game you might not play for very long. But I'm not sure this is quite there yet, and charging based on exterior time scales regardless of how much you actually play the game is never something I'll agree with.

[petercook7]

Thats why PC gaming has private servers, they have taken away lots of things players could do such as modding maps and now they want to charge for stuff that was once free they can take a running jump.
Games these days come out unfinished and full of bugs, BF2BC still isnt working. i would not play Subscription base gaming.

[dogg_77]

tbh i dont think i will be paying to play. unless its very cheap, i will play something else instead. such as battlefield.

think its a bad idea