31 May, 2011

WSJ: Call of Duty and the Modern Revenue Stream

Though the lying punks at Activision Blizzard have been denying for months stacked upon months stacked on top of years that they would never charge players to play the most pedestrian of games with the simplest gameplay and the greatest amount of sales (dumb sells), it has been announced that this is EXACTLY what they will do.

While no price has been announced, Activison Blizzard feels that a Netflix based subscription plan isn't totally ridiculous. You know, because tracking your stats and hooking you up with fellow lazy-minded fraks online is worth paying for especially if you think COD is the greatest game God ever handed down from the lamest heaven ever.

Sure, the free-to-play online model will still exist (free meaning they don't charge more than the $60 they already charged you for a game you will play for 5 hours offline) but this new "elite" scheme will probably come with options and content that they would have otherwise included in the game if not for the fact that they realized simpleton converts would pay more for less.  After all, it has worked well for the EA Sports franchises, why not COD?

What say you, COD players?  Will you continue to suck on the exhaust pipe of this franchise or is it time to move onto something else?  When did COD jump the shark? Is Treyarch the devil?! Can the new Infinity Ward compare to the old? Is Respawn ready to dance on the grave of these tools?

10 comments:

  1. This is ridiculous. I'll stick with the Battlefield franchise thank you.

    But what really sucks, is that people will by it because its the IT game franchise.

    Whatta load of bantha pudu.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If I even bother with this type of game, I will go to Battlefield. I like destructible environments and such. Granted, when it comes to modern day combat, I prefer Armed Assault or even the free America's Army 3.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Activision regurgitates the same crap every year upon the sheep. There is no originality yet it sells like freakin' hotcakes. If it ain't broke don't fix it I guess.

    Even in the fps genre if that is your thing, there are more inventive imaginative games like the Bioshock series, F.E.A.R and such that deserve more sales and recognition than COD.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I bought Killzone 3... not sure if I am planning on buying any other FPS games for a while. Though, I do have something planned for this site regarding MW2. My brother and I have to get together and work on it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have Killzone 3 as well. Just got a new LED tv and want to see how the 3D features work on Killzone. Was curious to find out if the Move functionality was any good.

    I was actually going for the full tool attire, you know the 3D glasses and the Move gun. Definition of loser.

    MW2 or did you mean MW3?

    ReplyDelete
  6. MW2.

    I don't know when I will have the cash to get a new TV much less an LED or 3D ready one. ;)

    Hell, my current LCD has a brown streak running diagonally down the right side of the screen. It can get really annoying sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now you're making me feel guilty. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Are you dissing CoD?

    Pure fun snd mayhem with an infinite army of potty mouthed bigoted opponents one xboxLIVE account away. Dude thats escapist heaven.

    Personally I dont think,how Activision can rationslize a fee for service subscription fot the multiplayer experience...but if it means s steady stream of playable maps, customizations and weapons its no different then the periodic offering of packs they do now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Man, consumers allow themselves to be punched in the gut every time by buying into the initial sales scheme. Of course they will first provide some apparent value added elements into this subscription plan, but it is only a means to suck you in. And then BLAM! They nail you with the addiction cost.

    ReplyDelete