so what else are they going to try to "monetize"?

[FieryTrainwreck]

I hate the word "monetize". It's basically the act of inventing a service so you can charge people for something that's been entirely free for years. It's a very common practice nowadays because all kinds of traditional media distributors were slow to recognize the power of the internet, which has obsoleted pretty much every other form of content distribution. They weren't on the ground floor charging us exorbitant sums for doing nothing (as is their traditional business model), so they're trying to cram that fucking genie back in the bottle with all their might.

Bobby Kotick is obviously a huge fan of monetization. He's trying to monetize the shit out of FPS multiplayer with a completely idiotic subscription model. We've been playing these games online for free for over a fucking decade now, but apparently this douche can't stomach the sight of someone enjoying his products for an extended period of time without continually paying for the privilege. You think he's going to turn CoD into WoW, with tons of new content every month and a persistent world and all the bells/whistles that justify a monthly fee? Hell no. He's going to add a few new features, promise a new map every month, and expect people to pony up for something that's been completely fucking free since I was 12.

The sad part? It's gonna work.

In an effort to make myself even more sad, I'm offering a simple question: what's next? What free element of this hobby is going to suddenly start costing us money?

 

[Marmooset]

Forum posting.
And I came up with it first.
Pay up.

(No, wait. Blizzard. Damn, damn, damn...)

 

[Last Bullet]

Functionality. Want our game to work? Pay for the patches. Did one of our patches break the game in some way? Pay for the next one.

Honestly, I hope this (the subscription thing) just falls flat on its face. I want this Kotick guy to fall on his face. Or get fired. Schafer had it right, he needs to fuck off.

 

[Kollega]

Ammunition, obviously. You want to shoot enemies in your first-person shooter? Get out the money!

Funny thing is that some guys have already tried it once (although in a free-to-download game). It didn't exactly work.

Although i wouldn't worry about it too much. We are nearing the moment when gamers are fed up with that bullshit and large corporations in that sphere will start losing millions of dollars. Remember the Comic Crash of 1994? Same thing here. I hope.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Functionality. Want our game to work? Pay for the patches. Did one of our patches break the game in some way? Pay for the next one.

Honestly, I hope this (the subscription thing) just falls flat on its face. I want this Kotick guy to fall on his face. Or get fired. Schafer had it right, he needs to fuck off.

He's approaching a purely recreational hobby like a traditional service industry. If he's successful in implementing his ideas, he's literally going to ruin this shit for me. I'm not about to start paying through the fucking nose for gaming. For starters, I can't afford it. Secondably, why the hell should I have to?

 

[JacobyPAX]

Want an edge on all your friends and enemies, buy premium weapons for the low price of $19.99.

 

[Klopy]

Bittorrent. They'll make it legal, but cost like 50 bucks to download and 2.50 a download. But, if you throw in 2.50 more, we'll give you a premium download that'll download 5x as fast!

 

[Drexlor]

I seriously hope that nobody pays the subscription fee just so Kotick gets to know his role. But I know that people will, and that will just encourage him.

 

[Last Bullet]

He's approaching a purely recreational hobby like a traditional service industry. If he's successful in implementing his ideas, he's literally going to ruin this shit for me. I'm not about to start paying through the fucking nose for gaming. For starters, I can't afford it. Secondably, why the hell should I have to?

1) I know what you mean, I really do. 2) ..."Secondably" ? Ha, but in all seriousness, I get what you're saying.

I personally don't really understand CoD, the entire franchise (minus CoD3, which I haven't played for some reason). It's fun, yes, I will give it that. The Modern Warfare's were even pretty cool in some parts. But outside of those semi-scripted scenes, or simply a cool part (I really liked the snowbike thing in MW2), it's mainly just your basic shooter. I'm a sucker for creativity and immersion and all that stuff, so a lot of it just felt... done. Hopefully enough people feel vaguely the same way.

*Shrugs* But enough semi-derailing, I think this subscription stuff won't become super-popular. Maybe it will work for this title, might even work for Activision/Respawn/Infinity/whoever-the-hell-ends-up-making-CoD but it probably won't work with a lot of others.

 

[Zaik]

heartbeats will be copyrighted, followed shortly by breathing and blinking.

 

[faselei]

Haha great OP, loved it.

Yeah the subscription model really is en vogue atm. Well it makes sense, must make them mad to watch there customers having paid once enjoying that game again and again without paying them.

Its been tried outside of FPS too, CitiesXL was basically a new SimCity that wanted ?5 a month for access to a bolt on MMO which didn't work at all and add ons that should of been in the original game.

I can see expansion packs being sold, but updates and patches? Will people stomach it. Probably. Idiots. There are some great free open source FPS but they aren't as shiny. You deserve the abuse. All of you.

 

[Jandau]

They will monetize paying for games. You will have to pay them to be allowed to buy their games. Because buying games is a luxury and should be paid for as a luxury...

 

[Cherry Cola]

Buying games.

It's far out there, but it is a thought. And the thought is: What if stores charge you for gaining membership to their stores just so you can buy games.

It could be something less devious, like charging you a subscription fee for getting privileges like pre-ordering games. Or it could be more devious, and charge you for a subscription if you want to buy games at all.

 

[TiefBlau]

Monetization goes as far as the people are willing to go. They decide to make games subscription-based, and the people say "YES MASTER, PLEASE SPOON-FEED ME YOUR GENERIC SHIT." They make games like Modern Warfare 2 as opposed to an expansion pack, and sell it for 60 bucks, and the people say "60 DOLLARS? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THROW IN SOME SHITTY NIGHT VISION GOGGLES AND I'LL BUY IT FOR A HUNDRED AND FIFTY."

The proof of Blizzard's 3-part campaign is in the playing, so I won't criticize that, but the "premium map" shit is overboard, so they take the prize for blatant monetization.

That being said, it'll probably reach the point where every enemy, PvP battle, treasure chest, and door will require a toll booth.

 

[angry_flashlight]

If morons will pay for such a blatant rip-off, then the process won't stop. I'm just wondering how long it'll be before companies start charging for bodily functions.

"Oh, that'll be $5.98 at the till please."

OP: Kotick is an insane person who has managed to become head of a large corporation, and now has plans for world domination. First the internet, THEN THE WORLD!

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

heartbeats will be copyrighted, followed shortly by breathing and blinking.

I wanted to laugh, but corporations are already putting patents on the genes. My genes. The ones in my fucking body that were there when I was born.

Man, that judge's ruling better hold up...

 

[tomtom94]

Playing games themselves will soon be charged for.
Let me explain.
The games (and indeed entertainment) industry is probably in the future going to move away from discs (which A: require a publisher and B: lose lots of profit due to unnecessary disc production costs etc) and more towards OnLive-style services whereby:

A) You pay for the subscription service.
B) You pay to "buy" the games.
C) You pay to play certain features of the game (read: multiplayer)

This will result in Activision probably going bankrupt or at least shrinking when companies realise they can release games without their help, so it's not all bad.

Also

Snip

While I don't agree with Kotick's business plan, I do think that your complaints are basically "How dare he try and extract more money from something profitable which is essentially being played without any royalties being paid to him?"
Businesses exist solely to make money. He is paid pretty much depending on how much money his company makes. It IS in his best interests to do this. Just no-one else's.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

While I don't agree with Kotick's business plan, I do think that your complaints are basically "How dare he try and extract more money from something profitable which is essentially being played without any royalties being paid to him?"
Businesses exist solely to make money. He is paid pretty much depending on how much money his company makes. It IS in his best interests to do this. Just no-one else's.

The fact that his interests don't include those of anyone else makes him a monster.

I know you're not endorsing his approach, but I sincerely hope you're not defending it on the grounds that he's merely fulfilling his nature. Serial killers do the same thing every day.

Sorry, I fucking hate apologists for terrible things. I don't accept awful people as an inevitable product of our world, and I certainly don't excuse the individuals who fill those roles simply because "someone was going to"; I'm not about to forgive the bad guy on account of the fact that someone will always take it upon himself to be the bad guy.

 

[tomtom94]

While I don't agree with Kotick's business plan, I do think that your complaints are basically "How dare he try and extract more money from something profitable which is essentially being played without any royalties being paid to him?"
Businesses exist solely to make money. He is paid pretty much depending on how much money his company makes. It IS in his best interests to do this. Just no-one else's.

The fact that his interests don't include those of anyone else makes him a monster.

I know you're not endorsing his approach, but I sincerely hope you're not defending it on the grounds that he's merely fulfilling his nature. Serial killers do the same thing every day.

Sorry, I fucking hate apologists for terrible things. I don't accept awful people as an inevitable product of our world, and I certainly don't excuse the individuals who fill those roles simply because "someone was going to"; I'm not about to forgive the bad guy on account of the fact that someone will always take it upon himself to be the bad guy.

This is the ultimate flaw of capitalism, I'm afraid - money, and the fact that everyone always wants more of it.
The only thing we can do is not purchase subscriptions, but I don't think that in the long run that will make any difference.