Call of Duty ELITE - monetizing the online shooter

[JSR]

Now that the wild nerdrage have had time to subside, I think it's time to give this idea it's own thread. It is after all something that might have a huge impact on our industry. Whether or not it will be financially successful, it will send out a message to every content provider out there. If successful, others are sure to follow. If not, I assume Activision - and in time, others - will find another way to get more money from the average COD player (microtransactions perhaps?).

Personally, I think it's way overdue. Casual players spend as little as 50 quids a year in total game purchases and get a whole years worth of playtime for that little investment. They're not exactly giving the industry the money it both needs and deserves. For that much fun, I don't think anybody have the right to complain about - what I estimate to be - another 50 quids each year for the same, and more content.

Looking at the official website, it seems all announced features are to be free, and that every feature requiring a subscription, is yet to be announced.

[Neon Ignition]

As soon as they confirmed subscribers recieve the DLC any complaints against it became mute. Players are no worse off or even save money, despite the typical bias anti-COD/Activision of some, this seems to be a way of Activision to develop player community to generate longterm player loyalty to the series. If the DLC schedule transparacy works out it could be alright for all involved. It wouldn't work for most series but here it makes sense, EA should watch it carefully as so far Battlefields DLC structure is one of the worst around and if this works it could aid Battlefield immensely

[speedlolita]

Personally, I think it's way overdue. Casual players spend as little as 50 quids a year in total game purchases and get a whole years worth of playtime for that little investment. They're not exactly giving the industry the money it both needs and deserves. For that much fun, I don't think anybody have the right to complain about - what I estimate to be - another 50 quids each year for the same, and more content.

Really?

I've played CSS for 6 years solid, should I contribute more to the industry? Madness.

EDIT: Is that a joke post because it just breaks my brain.

[JSR]

I've played CSS for 6 years solid, should I contribute more to the industry? Madness.

EDIT: Is that a joke post because it just breaks my brain.

6 year old games rarely costs much to maintain and have probably long ago made enough money to cover the R&D costs, and I believe you - like most people on a game forum - cover more than your share in game related purchases.

And no, it was not a joke. I think 50 quids - or 100, if the premium service ends up costing another 50 a year - is a bargain for all the game content the player wants for a whole year. Do you really think that is expensive for a entire years worth (maybe a thousand hours for some people) of premium interactive entertainment?

[speedlolita]

And no, it was not a joke. I think 50 quids - or 100, if the premium service ends up costing another 50 a year - is a bargain for all the game content the player wants for a whole year. Do you really think that is expensive for a entire years worth (maybe a thousand hours for some people) of premium interactive entertainment?

That's isolating those who don't play CoD online though. Don't you think? Pricing a game on how you assume people are going to play it isn't right. Although, I guess they can just wait and buy it pre-owned - further screwing the game industry. As an option, for those who really require it, then yeah I can see it being successful - but people shouldn't have to be forced. Which is the vibe I got from reading your post. It's like, don't like it, stop playing. They've bought the game they can play it how they want.

[JSR]

That's isolating those who don't play CoD online though. Don't you think? Pricing a game on how you assume people are going to play it isn't right. Although, I guess they can just wait and buy it pre-owned - further screwing the game industry. As an option, for those who really require it, then yeah I can see it being successful - but people shouldn't have to be forced. Which is the vibe I got from reading your post. It's like, don't like it, stop playing. They've bought the game they can play it how they want.

I solely meant those that play it online. Hardly think the singleplayer can sustain somebodies interest for a whole year. And the game price won't change. Elite will be an additional OPTIONAL fee.

[speedlolita]

Well, that's what I mean. Charging more for the online element is unfair to those that don't play it online, in regards to RRP at least. But hey, video games.

[JSR]

How will it be unfair to those that aren't online, when the RRP will be the SAME AS IT HAS EVER BEEN?! (now I have brain pain too)

[speedlolita]

Blops had a stupid RRP iirc. Far far more than previous Call of Duty titles.

[JSR]

Here in Norway it had the same price, at least out to retailers. But that's another discussion. (yet one where you have a point, the singleplayer and multiplayer components should not affect each others price)

[FelixofMars]

The thing about what is offered in the COD Pro pack is almost the same as what you get from Bungie for Halo. They have both a basic stat page and also the option to buy extras like upload to YouTube. I can't see how something that MS/Bungie have done for years is suddenly going to make EVERYONE do it. I admit is better marketed to the masses from Activision because they believe we SHOULD pay for this crap.

An no I don't agree, lots of the games that require a fee like this are server based. There is actually something that needs to be kept running your paying for when most of the COD stuff is peer to peer. I already know if COD is pay to go online at any point I won't play it anymore.

Two questions for you.

1.What exactly am I getting for my extra cash to go online that I didn't get before?
2.What is the money I am paying for this service going to?

I think the answer is probably going to be nothing, or a stats page at the most and the money is going to Kotick's pocket.

[JSR]

1.What exactly am I getting for my extra cash to go online that I didn't get before?
2.What is the money I am paying for this service going to?

Did you read my first post properly? See the link. Activison themselves say that all announced features so far are FREE. The features requiring payment are yet to be announced, so with me not being psychic, I can't really answer those questions, neither can you.

Edit:
I can give you some guesses, however: Rumors say that the map packs will be included. If that's correct, you have a 45 dollar value right there. Beyond that, I would guess online storage of videos (like the service Bungie charges for) only profile to be accessed on friends' consoles, exclusive themes, and a tv series of some kind (rumored at least).

[Matt]

I'd pay subs for a dedicated server service. But then I pay subs for Live and am still expected to host my own games I will not pay per title, and let's be honest that's what the end game is. The WOW business model.

The real problem here is as the subscription model expands across the industry, you start tying people into one or two titles.

"Stop moaning, it's only a fiver a month to play your favourite game online! A fiver is nothing stong WHINGING" say the idiots who spout company rhetoric like it's their own free will.

But it's not only a fiver a month, is it? Want to play CoD online? Fiver a month. FIFA online? Fiver a month. Whatever other game, another fiver per game, per month.

So people will buy one or two multiplayer titles a year and sub themselves down to them. Guess what? It's worse for the industry. Brilliant for those who own the IP that everyone plays, kills the rest.

Of course, they'll always be titles that do not charge per month to play online. But then once you're tied into a subscription, you'll want to get as much value out of it and play it as much as possible, leaving less time for other titles. So you'll spend less on other titles.

And some of us live in the Real World where we'd be left with a choice - a new game this month, or my sub costs. Again, less money spent on other titles.

I think subscription costs are ****ing stupid.

You want to know a decent business model that publishers could profit from and gamers as well? See, I think about things beyond feeding the publishing monsters. Dedicated Servers. Allow clans to buy their own online server for say a tenner a month. They admin it, setup map rotation, game rules, set it Public or Private. Proper console clan matches and leagues can be organised. Publishers make money for giving the gamer a better experience. Win win.

[Robster]

One thing to remember is that videogame industry is a business and needs to cater to its customers otherwise it will go bust.

No industry deserves money from its customers, it has to be earned by producing what the customer likes and wants.

[EDDIE M0NS00N]

I can give you some guesses, however: Rumors say that the map packs will be included. If that's correct, you have a 45 dollar value right there. Beyond that, I would guess online storage of videos (like the service Bungie charges for) only profile to be accessed on friends' consoles, exclusive themes, and a tv series of some kind (rumored at least).

I've said a fair bit on this subject over on the Sledgehammer thread, but, well, here I go again!

I know that it is rumours so far, but I would rather buy any DL content using the points cards, simply because I only buy points cards when they are on some kind of special offer anyway, thus saving myself even more money per point. I dont buy all the map packs because I'm not that impressed with them due to them rehashing old maps or leaving some with no imagination, so I buy maybe 1 map pack per COD title.

As for the recording of videos & allowing friends exclusive access to them, well again I'm not sure it would be worth the money & I'm sure that most ppl would feel the same.
It would have to be something huuuuuuuuuuuuge to get my interest & money.

And I agree that once 1 publisher starts this then I'm sure all the other top franchises will follow suit.
Matt has hit the nail bang on when he mentioned this will lead to paying a fee to every 1 of those games leaving gamers with less to spend on other games, which will eventually cut sales across the board on other new & possible massive games which will then get dumped & videogames sales figures will drop like a stone.