'Call of Duty' Sets Sights on a monthly Fee with COD Elite

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I'd say that a smart business decision.

Cannot be argued otherwise, our friend Bobby makes millions, and every decision he makes is almost a complete business success (looking at you Tony Hawk Ride).

This service is going to make a boat load of money, and there's nothing angry people online can do about it. I'm one of those "angry" people, simply because times like these always remind me of a "grass is greener" time when publishers/developers would never pull stunts like this and shower us in free DLC/content.

Times change, and sometimes the past just hurts :laugh: Gaming has boomed insanely in popularity the past 5 years, and like in any sector that does, business changes come about and the mass audience now may do something completely different than the mass audience from 10 years ago.

Mark my words even amidst uproar and negativity online, this service will make good profits for Activision, and I'm sure like always, we'll see lots of the pre-release angry complainers join in on release/afterwards.

[Unix2]

If they sell the game free with the subscription services then it will not be bad or are they trying to imitate World of Warcraft monthly fee and price?

[Ayepecks]

God no. Where are you getting this?

You are talking about cost-based pricing. Most major corporations don't really use cost-based pricing anymore. I'm talking about value-based pricing which looks at the value a particular person receives and attempts to price accordingly.

Believe me, if Activision/Blizzard can make more money stepping on toes than not, they will step on toes. They are gambling that the number of people turned off and not even purchase the game will be outweighed by the number of people that sign up for the service.

Let's not forget here: Activision/Blizzard doesn't make much from a single sale of a game.

They have so many licensing fees and associated costs that their marginal profit on a game is probably only a few dollars per game sold. On the other hand, the marginal profit from a subscription service is nearly pure profit since there are fewer, if any, licensing fees and much lower costs (no middle man, no manufacturing costs, no transportation...etc). In other words, if one user keeps Elite for 6 months, that could easily equate to the net profit of 6 retail units sold.

Activision/Blizzard are not stupid. They know that CoD's days are numbered. There will be franchise fatigue and the competition is stepping up their game. They made a butt-load of money off Guitar Hero while they could and then dumped it. They're going to make a butt-load of money with CoD before it gets old and then they are going to dump it.

People talk about Guitar Hero as if it were a cautionary tale. HELLO! We aren't talking about selling TVs or cars. We are talking about pet rocks and pogs. We are talking about gimmicky controllers and a rhythm game. They made as much money as they could and then dumped it.

Activision/Blizzard bought Guitar Hero for $100 million in 2006 and made $2 billion in revenue in 5 years.

I wish all my cautionary tales were like that.

I'd say that a smart business decision.

I'm getting it from your posts. The only things you discuss are whether or not something makes a profit in your posts. When I or anyone bring up associated issues, you never address them, you simply go back to your argument of "well, it makes business sense" and attempt to use Activision's success to validate your point.

This would be all well and good if the company you're using to validate your point didn't suffer a major setback with its previous bread-and-butter franchise, Guitar Hero. You're now sitting here and attempting to tell me that driving a franchise (please note I emphasized that word because you don't seem to be understanding we're discussing a franchise) into the ground is smart business. Uh, no, it's not. If you think Guitar Hero is going to be looked at as a success in business classes five years from now you're crazy. Guitar Hero is the quintessential example of what not to do to a major franchise in any industry. You don't oversaturate the market, you don't cannibalize your own sales, you don't pump out content that is cheap to produce but slowly loses you loyal customers, you don't rush products to the market regardless of quality simply because you have a project roadmap, you don't try to nickel and dime customers with increasing supplemental products that in reality are no better than their predecessors, etc.

So, yes, your posts do tell me that the only thing you're taking into account is the money you're capable of making from a singular product and/or service, regardless of the impact it has on your brand image. Furthermore, you completely misread what I told you. I told you that your posts indicate to me that you take on a project if it's financially successful. This is a financial construct I proposed that is a legitimate concept, but one that overlooks the associated issues if you don't take into account its impact on your other properties. I wasn't talking about cost-based pricing versus value-based pricing, simply talking about the requirements to accept or reject taking on a project; my point was that you're looking at it from a financial basis devoid of other impacting factors.

A franchise's days shouldn't be "numbered" so long as its in a category of products or services that isn't obsolete. If you told Apple that the iPod as a franchise had a certain length of time it would be successful while audio players are not obsolete, they'd look at you like you're a moron. You may be happy in not maximizing the lifetime of your franchise for a short-term boom, but I sure as hell wouldn't.

[Lamp0]

Where are you getting this info from on the maps or DLC? I thought there were no real details other then the fact it has been announced?

Sorry, I should have posted the link:

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/05/31/call-of-duty-elite-preview/

We understand that. When our fans buy Call of Duty, they expect to be able to play the game single-player campaign, co-op missions, and the best multiplayer in the world, out-of-the-box and with no additional price. And that's our commitment to them." If you want one DLC pack but not two, then skip Elite and get that one pack. If you want Groups but don't care about the paid services Elite offers? Then don't pay for them. For the vast majority of players, we imagine Elite will be a solid value-add and not another thing to spend money on.

I imagine this service will be like a more sophisticated version of Bungie Pro.

[madd-hatter]

Obviously, this thread should have been a poll...

[DukeEsquire]

I'm getting it from your posts. The only things you discuss are whether or not something makes a profit in your posts. When I or anyone bring up associated issues, you never address them, you simply go back to your argument of "well, it makes business sense" and attempt to use Activision's success to validate your point.

This would be all well and good if the company you're using to validate your point didn't suffer a major setback with its previous bread-and-butter franchise, Guitar Hero. You're now sitting here and attempting to tell me that driving a franchise (please note I emphasized that word because you don't seem to be understanding we're discussing a franchise) into the ground is smart business. Uh, no, it's not. If you think Guitar Hero is going to be looked at as a success in business classes five years from now you're crazy. Guitar Hero is the quintessential example of what not to do to a major franchise in any industry. You don't oversaturate the market, you don't cannibalize your own sales, you don't pump out content that is cheap to produce but slowly loses you loyal customers, you don't rush products to the market regardless of quality simply because you have a project roadmap, you don't try to nickel and dime customers with increasing supplemental products that in reality are no better than their predecessors, etc.

So, yes, your posts do tell me that the only thing you're taking into account is the money you're capable of making from a singular product and/or service, regardless of the impact it has on your brand image. Furthermore, you completely misread what I told you. I told you that your posts indicate to me that you take on a project if it's financially successful. This is a financial construct I proposed that is a legitimate concept, but one that overlooks the associated issues if you don't take into account its impact on your other properties. I wasn't talking about cost-based pricing versus value-based pricing, simply talking about the requirements to accept or reject taking on a project; my point was that you're looking at it from a financial basis devoid of other impacting factors.

A franchise's days shouldn't be "numbered" so long as its in a category of products or services that isn't obsolete. If you told Apple that the iPod as a franchise had a certain length of time it would be successful while audio players are not obsolete, they'd look at you like you're a moron. You may be happy in not maximizing the lifetime of your franchise for a short-term boom, but I sure as hell wouldn't.

Why do you think $2 billion in sales on a $100 million purchase is a bad business move? I hope my next business venture "fails" like Guitar Hero.

Long-term success v. short-term success doesn't matter as much as the total net future potential earnings. Anyone can tell you that. EG: I'd rather make $2 billion in sales in 5 years than $2 billion in sales in 10 years.

Edit: Us blabbering back and forth isn't going to resolve this. I'll wait for sales figures. I predict they will be huge.

I predict that 99.9% of the people out there don't care about Elite. They will either pay for it or they won't. Either way, if they wanted CoD, they will still get it, regardless of the existence of Elite.

[Ayepecks]

Why do you think $2 billion in sales on a $100 million purchase is a bad business move? I hope my next business venture "fails" like Guitar Hero.

Long-term success v. short-term success doesn't matter as much as the total net future potential earnings. Anyone can tell you that. EG: I'd rather make $2 billion in sales in 5 years than $2 billion in sales in 10 years.

Edit: Us blabbering back and forth isn't going to resolve this. I'll wait for sales figures. I predict they will be huge.

I predict that 99.9% of the people out there don't care about Elite. They will either pay for it or they won't. Either way, if they wanted CoD, they will still get it, regardless of the existence of Elite.

My goodness man, are you trying to imitate the denseness of a brick or are you legitimately disregarding everything I'm writing while constantly repeating yourself?

Sales do not equal profit, for one. Every company is going to tout the revenue, because revenue takes into account the entire cost associated with the sale. Furthermore, if you read my post, you'd know I called their handling of Guitar Hero as a franchise a failure, not the transaction itself. It would really help if you'd even attempt to comprehend what I'm telling you instead of giving me these utterly stupid knee-jerk reactions to things I didn't say.

And now you're attempting to put even more words in my mouth because you think I said they should have attempted to get the same amount of revenue in a longer period of time. That's not even remotely what I told you; that's a stupid thing to state, because money in year zero is worth more than money in year five -- it doesn't take a financial genius to tell you that. What I said is they should sacrifice having as much revenue in the short-term for more revenue in the long-term.

Your edit further proves to me that you're looking at this solely from the singular variable of whether or not Elite makes money, regardless of its impact on other variables. I could've sworn you were arguing you never implied that before. :laugh:

[sweetham]

The only thing that would make this subscription remotely worth it is the map packs are included in the monthly pricing, but at the rate they throw out map packs and then drop support of the game after the next iteration is released, pricing won't be justified IMO. So I will pass. Too little content of value. I'm sure others will find it useful though.

[Kreuger]

"Call of Duty" is in a unique position to seek a monthly fee from customers.

Cause developers aren't killing us enough with the cost of the game itself. Activision is really pushing it this time. I said before I would never buy Black Ops but I did. This time, I will not do the same. I absolutely refuse to endorse them any longer.

[Minifig]

I don't get what the big deal is. If you don't want the extra maps or whatever extras, don't subscribe to it.

Because that philosophy works so well with MMOs (people don't like the extra content.. so why subscribe)... it'll work SO well with an FPS game.. :rolleyes:

[DukeEsquire]

My goodness man, are you trying to imitate the denseness of a brick or are you legitimately disregarding everything I'm writing while constantly repeating yourself?

Sales do not equal profit, for one. Every company is going to tout the revenue, because revenue takes into account the entire cost associated with the sale. Furthermore, if you read my post, you'd know I called their handling of Guitar Hero as a franchise a failure, not the transaction itself. It would really help if you'd even attempt to comprehend what I'm telling you instead of giving me these utterly stupid knee-jerk reactions to things I didn't say.

And now you're attempting to put even more words in my mouth because you think I said they should have attempted to get the same amount of revenue in a longer period of time. That's not even remotely what I told you; that's a stupid thing to state, because money in year zero is worth more than money in year five -- it doesn't take a financial genius to tell you that. What I said is they should sacrifice having as much revenue in the short-term for more revenue in the long-term.

Your edit further proves to me that you're looking at this solely from the singular variable of whether or not Elite makes money, regardless of its impact on other variables. I could've sworn you were arguing you never implied that before. :laugh:

You think I"m dense? I'm purposefully shortening my posts because you can't figure out what I'm telling you. I figure maybe if you have less text to read, maybe you'll get it.

It boils down to this: Activision/Blizzard is gambling it will net more money with Elite than without. Maybe you disagree. Fine. We'll wait for the sales numbers.

I really don't understand the uproar...

"If you want extra stuff, pay money for it. If you don't want it, don't pay for it."

Here is a Reddit post echoing my views if you think that I'm just some crazy outlier:

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/hoyo7/did_anyone_actually_read_the_article_on_call_of/

I just finished reading Gamers Rage Over Call of Duty Elite Plans and you guys missed the point. Activision has created a new service that has a premium membership area. They are not forcing you to pay for anything that you're getting for free at the minute. The article is also biased and craps on Activision for trying make money. Just a final note, I'm a Battlefield player and have always liked it more so don't think of me as a CoD player and fan boy; I'm all I'm doing is bringing logic and reason to reddit (where did that go?).

[DukeEsquire]

My goodness man, are you trying to imitate the denseness of a brick or are you legitimately disregarding everything I'm writing while constantly repeating yourself?

Sales do not equal profit, for one. Every company is going to tout the revenue, because revenue takes into account the entire cost associated with the sale. Furthermore, if you read my post, you'd know I called their handling of Guitar Hero as a franchise a failure, not the transaction itself. It would really help if you'd even attempt to comprehend what I'm telling you instead of giving me these utterly stupid knee-jerk reactions to things I didn't say.

And now you're attempting to put even more words in my mouth because you think I said they should have attempted to get the same amount of revenue in a longer period of time. That's not even remotely what I told you; that's a stupid thing to state, because money in year zero is worth more than money in year five -- it doesn't take a financial genius to tell you that. What I said is they should sacrifice having as much revenue in the short-term for more revenue in the long-term.

Your edit further proves to me that you're looking at this solely from the singular variable of whether or not Elite makes money, regardless of its impact on other variables. I could've sworn you were arguing you never implied that before. :laugh:

The point you somehow managed to miss was that not all franchises have the potential for long term gains. So, you got to milk while you can.

Do you think the inventor of the Pet Rock should have played it slow and tried to get long-term gains? No. It is a fad. Guitar Hero is a fad. CoD is a fad.

Everything has a shelf life. Some are short (a fad). Some are long. If it is a fad, make money while you can.

[AnotherITguy]

This is the reason why i don't buy the map packs, friggin over priced, and now more proof of their greed with this silliness.

[capr]

it will work. there are a ton of people out there who would rather pay something to be able to play with a possibly more mature player base. you won't see many 13 year olds paying 5 bucks a month so they can play cod. also all the non serious "noobs" won't be doing that either.

the PC MMO market is a perfect example of serious gamers getting together to play and willing to pay an exclusivity fee to keep out all the others.

[DukeEsquire]

This is the reason why i don't buy the map packs, friggin over priced, and now more proof of their greed with this silliness.

Good. Vote with your wallet. Business are out to make money. Consumer are out to save money.

There is inherent conflict and voting with your wallet is the only way to tell businesses whether something is overpriced. As long as the money keeps rolling in, they don't care.

[-KJ]

They should invest in dedicated servers for CoD on consoles, not this bullsh.

[ahhell]

I love all the outrage over this, yet the same people that are bitching will be the same people that makes this a great success.

Bunch of lemmings.

[DukeEsquire]

They should invest in dedicated servers for CoD on consoles, not this bullsh.

Here is the math:

Spend money on servers or making money on premium subscription program?

Not a hard math problem.

I love all the outrage over this, yet the same people that are bitching will be the same people that makes this a great success.

Bunch of lemmings.

Agreed. People are freaking out like someone told them a dozen eggs cost $50 now.

You still get single player and multiplayer when you buy the game. However, now there is an added service that costs extra and people are flipping out?

Sorry if I don't have any sympathy...

[Duality]

People are so quick to forget how gaming used to be. I remember when I didn't have to get my wallet out for features like this, or map packs.

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

"Windows Extras" comes to mind. I get bored of COD after 2-3 months, this service will be a waste for me. And no, I wouldn't pay monthly for anything like this.

[DukeEsquire]

People are so quick to forget how gaming used to be. I remember when I didn't have to get my wallet out for features like this, or map packs.

Times change.

I remember when new SNES games were between $60-$80. And that was 20 years ago. Factoring in inflation, that is $92-$122 in today's dollars using this inflation calculator.

I think some SNES games were even more than that. I seem to remember Mortal Kombat selling for $100.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

[Ayepecks]

You think I"m dense? I'm purposefully shortening my posts because you can't figure out what I'm telling you. I figure maybe if you have less text to read, maybe you'll get it.

It boils down to this: Activision/Blizzard is gambling it will net more money with Elite than without. Maybe you disagree. Fine. We'll wait for the sales numbers.

I really don't understand the uproar...

"If you want extra stuff, pay money for it. If you don't want it, don't pay for it."

Here is a Reddit post echoing my views if you think that I'm just some crazy outlier:

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/hoyo7/did_anyone_actually_read_the_article_on_call_of/

The point you somehow managed to miss was that not all franchises have the potential for long term gains. So, you got to milk while you can.

Do you think the inventor of the Pet Rock should have played it slow and tried to get long-term gains? No. It is a fad. Guitar Hero is a fad. CoD is a fad.

Everything has a shelf life. Some are short (a fad). Some are long. If it is a fad, make money while you can.

:laugh:

Listen, it's cute that you want to copy what I say, but that doesn't make it true. I've addressed your posts already, and all you're doing is repeating yourself.

And it wasn't a point I missed because you never brought it up. What I find ironic is that you're trying to, again, sit there and tell me something I think even you realize isn't true. Guitar Hero didn't die because it was a fad. Activision oversaturated the market and poured pointless game after pointless game in it. Call of Duty, similarly, is not a fad anymore than James Bond is a fad in movies. The first-person shooter genre has proven staying power, so I'm unsure of what about the game makes you think it's a fad.

I guess Mario's a fad too, huh? Because I don't buy for even a second that, if handled properly, both Guitar Hero and Call of Duty can't be wildly successful for a far longer period of time, for as long as video games are successful. Because for some reason I get the feeling that first-person shooters are going to be popular for a long time to come, and people are going to be playing musical instruments for a long time to come.

[Crazysah]

Good. Vote with your wallet. Business are out to make money. Consumer are out to save money.

There is inherent conflict and voting with your wallet is the only way to tell businesses whether something is overpriced. As long as the money keeps rolling in, they don't care.

Yes totally agreed. This is outrageious. Unless it's something like less than $2 a month.

[Duality]

Times change.

I remember when new SNES games were between $60-$80. And that was 20 years ago. Factoring in inflation, that is $92-$122 in today's dollars using this inflation calculator.

I think some SNES games were even more than that. I seem to remember Mortal Kombat selling for $100.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Looks like we shall have to agree to disagree on this one :)

[DukeEsquire]

:laugh:

Listen, it's cute that you want to copy what I say, but that doesn't make it true. I've addressed your posts already, and all you're doing is repeating yourself.

And it wasn't a point I missed because you never brought it up. What I find ironic is that you're trying to, again, sit there and tell me something I think even you realize isn't true. Guitar Hero didn't die because it was a fad. Activision oversaturated the market and poured pointless game after pointless game in it. Call of Duty, similarly, is not a fad anymore than James Bond is a fad in movies. The first-person shooter genre has proven staying power, so I'm unsure of what about the game makes you think it's a fad.

I guess Mario's a fad too, huh? Because I don't buy for even a second that, if handled properly, both Guitar Hero and Call of Duty can't be wildly successful for a far longer period of time, for as long as video games are successful. Because for some reason I get the feeling that first-person shooters are going to be popular for a long time to come, and people are going to be playing musical instruments for a long time to come.

Please cite where I said James Bond, first-person shooters and Mario are a fad. Thanks! You are really good at setting up straw men.

I just said Guitar Hero is a fad. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. It had a meteoric rise and then a meteoric fall. Maybe you think it would have been wildly successfully for "as long as video games are successful". Seems like a rather ballsy claim considering we have no idea what the future of gaming holds next year, much less than "as long as video games are successful." But whatever, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I just think it's silly to complain that Activision/Blizzard is charging a subscription fee for content like a CoD TV series produced by Hollywood talent. I don't see why that should be free with purchase of the game.