You must have missed the http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/10/activision-expresses-interest-in-subscription-based-call-of-duty/ a few weeks ago where Kotick was suggesting that a subscription fee may be added to Modern Warfare 2 and, perhaps, some later games in order to "provide better gaming experiences."

Edit: bah, not the exact article. I wish I could find it.

Again, did you actually read the article?


Unlike you with Valve, he is not painting Activision as the good guys, he's simply explaining that what they are doing is business practice.

You keep making these claims, but I don't see any statements whatsoever from Kotick or anyone else at Activision supporting the notion that they are going to introduce subscription based multiplayer on their existing titles.

Are you just making it up?



Problem with that reasoning is that prices change. The general trend for the last few hundred years has been a steady inflation, and you simply cannot keep the same prices on video games when the prices of everything else goes up.

Besides, I don't know what you're complaining about, the average price of a new console title in Sweden is over $90, I'd be happy as a lark if they only cost $60.



For the same reason why I am willing to excuse Valve's shady and dishonest business practices.

You, on the other hand, are both in favour and not in favour of shady and dishonest business practices, just because you like one company and dislike another. You excuse Valve's shady and dishonest business practices, while bashing Activision's shady and dishonest business practices because their business practices are shady and dishonest.

I'd like some consistency, if you don't mind terribly.

I'd love to see more than that SINGLE example of Valve being some sort of evil monster. As far as I am concerned, they are gods of the gaming industry. Jesus, what was that some months ago, TF2 on steam for...1? 2 dollars? Updates all for free. New content for free. Source games that support the community rather than punish it. Oh yeah, and they still have dedicated servers, unlike some corporations.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/14174-activision-ceo-would-wish-for-call-of-duty-subscriptions-in-an-instant/

I must say, I'm surprised to find out, this discussion has clearly been about religion all along; Valve are god and Activision are the devil.

Myself, I'd like to think of them as companies with different ways of maximizing profit, but maybe I'm not sufficiently invested in the topic.

Different ways. Some I like, some I definitely do not.

I wonder why? Probably because one costs me more money. The other less.

Can you guess which companies are using which methods?


I'm sorry you can't understand hyperbole.

I guess it's true what they say; there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Ironic, isn't it, that the most fervent opponents of Activision are the ones most willing to provide them with extra publicity?

That article contains alot of conjecturing, but no actual facts, they don't even quote him.

http://www.totalvideogames.com/Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops/news/Kotick-Talks-Up-Online-Subscription-Charges-For-CoD-15396.html

Yeah read that, nowhere does it say they are going to introduce a subscription fee for an existing product. I wouldn't be surprised when they actually do introduce a subscription based Call of Duty game, but that's going to be a new game. And there is absolutly nothing wrong with that if people will be willing to pay for it.


Yes, apparently you missed a couple years ago when Valve made their first big special by selling L4D 1 for 5$/€ and figured out that they generated a [censored]ton of revenue with it, because like I said, a lot of people bought it since they thought "hey this is a steal" eventhough they normally wouldn't buy or play it.
Stop thinking Valve is doing this because they're your best buddies, they're doing it to get your cash, plain and simple, like any other company.


And like I said before, Valve is tricking people into buying more and more [censored], that they normally wouldn't buy. They are not making you spend less money. Why the [censored] should any company want to make you spend less money, in what world do you live in?
Special offers are NOTHING that Valve invented, it's a normal business practice since forever, that companies use to, you guessed it, get your money.

And so, the truth comes out at last; you don't care about ethics or morals, you don't care about the customer base, all you care about is the impact on your own wallet. I'm glad to see you actually admit it.

And you know what? That's perfectly fine, there's nothing wrong with caring about one's own bottom line, what's wrong is pretending like one has an interest in some greater good.



You do realize hyperbole isn't actually a good thing?

You do realize he's talking about the future of the series, and the prospects for expanding the horizons of it, I hope?

Putting words in my mouth now. Great.

No, its about Activision jacking up prices and cutting content (goodbye, dedicated servers). Valve adds content, lowers prices, and offers great deals on a great service (Steam IS DRM, but I can download as many times as I like, on whatever computer I like, with great prices, tons of different games, and FREE and NEW content for FREE). The single, BAD example I've seen is charging more for European versions of their games. That is bad, I never said it wasn't, but then again, when I claim jacking prices up are bad, you and Kai Hohiro say that no one is forcing anybody to pay for those, yet the SAME THING goes for Valve and European games.

I do care about ethics. I do care about morals. Guess which of those Activision has. The same number of pigs that fly.

Yeah, even though they can do what they want, it doesn't mean we start saying "oh it's ok not to be ethical in business, in fact I'm going to start standing up for you!".

Also, Steam is awesome, every once in a while Mysterious Dr.D tells me about their new offer and I buy games at just 2-3 euros, or sometimes for free, like Portal. Activision are [censored]e, end of.

And that's a bad thing? They may make money, but they are doing so in a way that is good for the consumer.

Retail stores have sales all the time, and I've never ever heard a person complain because they are saving $20+ when grocery shopping because of sales.....

Not really - just disappointed and expressing my discontent.

I have no illusions about the games industry being a business, and I'm not at all surprised that profits are all that matter to some, but I am appalled that there are so many who accept such bad deals without question, and that there are those who would justify such a state of affairs. A fool and his coin are soon parted, eh? As long as it's not you! Who needs customer loyalty when you have cheap gimmicks to keep the svckers paying?

That's not why I became a gamer, and anyone who thinks this is good for gaming is deluded.

Why is it that everytime someone makes something new, everyone jumps on it as a gimmick? Gamers complain about the lack of originality in games today, but [censored] and moan whenever someone decides to be different. Can we stop being contrary?

It's not originality of gaming, though - that's the problem. The games are the same old [censored], it's just that you have to pay more now for a slightly shinier engine. That's not good.

So... the most significant advance in gaming these days is in payment method? That's rich...

That's how its always been.

I beg to differ.

That's more or less how sequels work. Shinier with new and better weapons and levels.

We're talking about a new payment system, though, for essentially the same experience. That's like saying a sequel is better because the DRM is more invasive this time.

Let's not get into the philosophy of freedom. All that matters is that whether or not people are idiots, they are entitled to decide which products they buy, period.

That's the only justification needed. In a free world, one must be free to act as one wishes within the confines of the law.

That applies to Bobby Kotick as well.

Did the word "ethics" get a new meaning while I wasn't looking?

It's not like there's one price on the tin and they charge your credit card for twice that, they are publicizing the facts about the prices and being very upfront about it. They are telling people what their goals are, and how they plan to achieve them. There are no concealed fees, there are no broken promises in terms of what content is provided, they are completely upfront about the whole thing.

How can it be unethical to do that?

But then again, maybe we need more deception and less honesty in the world, what do I know?

I wasn't talking about the draconian DRM (makes me glad I'm not a PC gamer) or Activision's subscription service. I was talking about actual game content.