|
|
|
only reason is because he wants to create a subscription service which is most viable on the PC platforum
|
On July 06 2010 03:06 udgnim wrote:
only reason is because he wants to create a subscription service which is most viable on the PC platforum
Naw, doubt it (As said in the article something along the lines of not liking subscription based blah blah). Micro Transactions is in right now.
|
"We would really like to be able to provide gather much more value to money from those millions of players playing on Live, but it's not our network," Kotick told the FT.
Fixed.
Well, whatever, I don't care about XBox and PS. But Kotick sure is greedy.
|
Wait, what's the difference between a "Gamer-friendly PC, designed to be plugged into the television" and a "Console". It seems activision just wants to make their own console. Although use mainstream hardware and save hundreds of millions in custom hardware.
|
On July 06 2010 03:11 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +"We would really like to be able to provide gather much more value to money from those millions of players playing on Live, but it's not our network," Kotick told the FT. Fixed. Well, whatever, I don't care about XBox and PS. But Kotick sure is greedy.
Yep $$$
I recall an earlier quote saying "COD players are just begging for a subscription based game" I nearly shit myself..
Edit: Thedeadpixel on the show inside gaming quoted it.
|
On July 06 2010 03:12 Phayze wrote:
Wait, what's the difference between a "Gamer-friendly PC, designed to be plugged into the television" and a "Console". It seems activision just wants to make their own console. Although use mainstream hardware and save hundreds of millions in custom hardware.
Basically, pc's that allow you to easily connect to a big screen with all the proper cables most likely. Sounds like it though.
|
This actually makes a lot of sense. I've never really thought about it.
Microsoft is basically charging a subscription, MMO-style, to play other people's games. Particularly games in the Call of Duty series.
|
On July 06 2010 03:12 Phayze wrote:
Wait, what's the difference between a "Gamer-friendly PC, designed to be plugged into the television" and a "Console". It seems activision just wants to make their own console. Although use mainstream hardware and save hundreds of millions in custom hardware.
They don't want to make their own console. What they want to do is find a cheap way to get people off of consoles (probably by encouraging people to buy console-type controllers that plug into a USB port on your computer, hooked in with some TV-out or something) and onto the computer.
|
On July 06 2010 03:17 Mortality wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2010 03:12 Phayze wrote:
Wait, what's the difference between a "Gamer-friendly PC, designed to be plugged into the television" and a "Console". It seems activision just wants to make their own console. Although use mainstream hardware and save hundreds of millions in custom hardware. They don't want to make their own console. What they want to do is find a cheap way to get people off of consoles (probably by encouraging people to buy console-type controllers that plug into a USB port on your computer, hooked in with some TV-out or something) and onto the computer.
Or just force Microsoft into an revenue sharing agreement.
|
I feel that this is just a way for them to get more money. Leave it the way it is!
|
He said that Activision wants to break Sony and Microsoft's "walled gardens" - XBL and PSN - "with new gamer-friendly PCs, designed to be plugged into the television".
"gamer-friendly PCs"?
wtf is this nonsense
|
On July 06 2010 03:57 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +
He said that Activision wants to break Sony and Microsoft's "walled gardens" - XBL and PSN - "with new gamer-friendly PCs, designed to be plugged into the television".
"gamer-friendly PCs"? wtf is this nonsense
Not Apples? Oh hehe haha hooo... Jokes aside it makes me sick to think this company is partnered with Blizzard. It makes me feel dirty for buying sc2
|
LOL Kotick is funny. He really thinks he can manipulate gamers to switch to pc if they're already happy with their xbox live and PSN? hahahah PFFFT
|
On July 06 2010 03:57 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +
He said that Activision wants to break Sony and Microsoft's "walled gardens" - XBL and PSN - "with new gamer-friendly PCs, designed to be plugged into the television".
"gamer-friendly PCs"? wtf is this nonsense
Gamer-friendly PCs can be plugged directly into the television - the place where real gamers do their gaming. They also won't confuse gamers with free access to things like "the internet" and all that techno mumbo jumbo, instead they will provide exclusive targeted content through a flexible subscription-based format.
|
WTF is a console? Are those the terrible paper weights that are way overpriced I see at the game retailers where I go to buy my PC games?
|
I now know what true evil is.
[Mod Edit - death threat removed]
User was warned for this post.
Mickey edit: I was being sarcastic but warning was justified I guess.
|
On July 06 2010 04:13 MetalMarine wrote:
LOL Kotick is funny. He really thinks he can manipulate gamers to switch to pc if they're already happy with their xbox live and PSN? hahahah PFFFT
This gets even funnier if you picture a console gamer stepping in front of a PC and start playing... It's like dropping a bunny in a lion pit rofl 
|
Lol. Bobby is at it again, though no one didn't see this coming. Making their own content delivery system for the PC would make sense, if they could get players on to it in the first place. Generally when I think of "content delivery on PC" my mind drifts over to steam first. Activision good luck with this one.
|
I see a lot of problems with this.
1. Not all computers have HDMI ports. Normally these are only found on expensive video cards, which most gamers won't be able to afford (If they have to mow lawns all summer to get an xbox, or beg mommy and daddy, then how can they get a $700 gaming rig?)
2. There is going to be a lot of competition between Activision trying to get people into decent computer and then rip them off on software, and OEM computer manufacturers which will be doing the same old bullshit and continuing to rip off customers who know nothing about computer hardware.
3. Activision will lose this because the OEM's already have a large established base of customers, and also people are resistant to change. They probably don't have the technical know-how/ will refuse to learn WHY they should buy a better computer, and instead will see it in terms of "Xbox is $199, Gaming PC is $699"
|
I wasn't aware charging people more for the same game if not an even worse version of the game was giving them more value...
|
god, pc games are not supposed to have subscriptions to play, and he's definitely saying he wants to get off live so he can make subscription plans that make him the dough. that's fine for wow, due to the nature of the game, but i don't care if they give me some crappy map pack or achievement skins or pictures for my shooter. and i know starcraft is safe from subscriptions, but i'm afraid the same will not be true for diablo.
|
what a greedy fuck...
besides, PSN is already free anyways
|
Well as a CEO of any company you're kinda expected to be greedy... So what if he promotes computer over console. He might be a prick but so far I see no wrong here.
|
On July 06 2010 07:01 eLiE wrote:
god, pc games are not supposed to have subscriptions to play
sorry, i didn't see that specified in the eula for any of my hardware or games when i purchased them, it's also not part of my AT&T contract, or in the bill of rights
companies can put subscriptions on almost anything, and if the game is worth it - we will pay for it
|
My thoughts:
F*** OFF KOTICK, GO BACK TO YOUR 12 YEAR OLD MONOPOLY, THE INTERNETZ ARE BELONG TO US.
That cash grabbing goof just wants more $$$, AND our personal information. As if removing 'anonymity' will forge a more 'secure and constructive' community on Blizzard forums. BULLS***!
I was a sucker for buying the stupid map pack on MW2, what makes him think were gonna fall for his other antics on the PC? Sorry, but I'll keep my wallet zipped up until they Blizzard has a better direction other than heading straight to Hell.
|
bumping this thread cuz I found this article
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/110/1106732p1.html
Analyst - Activision Must Begin Multiplayer Fees
Publishers must find a way to profit off online multiplayer, says Pachter.
July 16, 2010
by Jim Reilly
If the videogame industry is going to rebound from its decline in software sales, publishers will need to look at monetizing online multiplayer, said Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter in his latest investor report.
Pachter believes one of the main reasons software sales for PS3 and Xbox 360 are down year-over-year is due to gamers continuing to log substantial hours into a handful of online games and not picking up new titles regularly.
"We estimate that a total of 12 million consumers are playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 for an average of 10 hours per week on the two platforms' respective networks, and the continued enjoyment of this game (along with an estimated 6 million Halo online players, 3 million EA Sports players, and 5 million players playing other games, such as Battlefield, Red Dead Redemption, Left 4 Dead and Grand Theft Auto) has sucked the available time away from what otherwise would be spent playing newly purchased games," he said.
Pachter also noted that Activision needs to make the first move with multiplayer charges, and expects we could see something with Call of Duty: Black Ops, set for release this November.
"We think that it is incumbent upon Activision, with the most popular multiplayer game, to take the first step to address monetization of multiplayer," said Pachter. "It is too early to tell whether that will be a monthly subscription, tournament entry fees, microtransaction fees, or a combination of all three, but we expect to see the company take some action by year-end, when Call of Duty Black Ops launches."
Pachter says he expects the publisher will apply a World of Warcraft-like business model to its Call of Duty franchise. Activision will likely continue to offer some form a free multiplayer for awhile, he says, but notes that it's imperative the company capitalizes on the estimated 4 billion hours of time spent online since the launch of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network.
"We are quick to point out that the average single player game has an expected play time of under 30 hours, suggesting that a staggering 133 million units of equivalent game play have been spent (so far) playing Call of Duty online, with Activision only seeing revenues from the original 20 million units sold, plus an estimated 8 million map packs sold," he added.
Activision hasn't been shy in the past about its intentions for some of its key franchises. The publisher has said several times it's looking at new online business models for Call of Duty and Guitar Hero.
In a recent interview, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick also made his displeasure known over closed online networks such as Xbox Live.
"We've heard that 60 per cent of [Microsoft's] subscribers are principally on Live because of Call of Duty," said Kotick. "We don't really participate financially in that income stream. We would really like to be able to provide much more value to those millions of players playing on Live, but it's not our network."
this analyst guy is a fucking idiot, hahaha
"millions of people play COD for hours on end each day, so we must charge them for it! that should save the industry for certain!"
if Activision does monetize multiplayer with their new game, I hope it fails miserably
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
