I hardly play CoD anyways, I have no problem with subscription fees if the games worth it but CoD isn't IMO.
svcks for live users who already have to pay.

You have a point, and Activision probably realizes this.

I bought my XBL for Gears of War, and to talk to friends. I like the story in MW. But that is it. It would be a dumb move if M$ agrees.

I think you're right about that. It won't effect me, though, as I rarely play any game in multiplayer and when I do it's on PC, I don't even use Xbox Live and the only kind of multiplayer I've ever played and ever want to play on a console is the kind where you have one or more of your friends sitting in front of the TV together and playing the game with multiple controllers.

Still, I doubt this will kill a series as popular as Call of Duty or Xbox Live as a whole. While if I was using Xbox Live, I probably wouldn't want to pay more just to appease Activision, it's quite obvious that at least some segment of the gaming market is willing to pay extra after buying a game to continue playing it, enough to allow MMOs with monthly subscription fees to generate lots of profit. Now, maybe one would argue that it's not fair for Activitision specifically to get paid as a result of Xbox Live when other companies whose games are also played over it don't, but does Microsoft agree? After all, they can choose whether they agree to this proposal or not, and time will tell, I suppose.

And in any case, it's not exactly a big surprise that Activision, or any game company, for that matter, is greedy. They are, after all, a corporation, and corporations naturally want to make money, that's generally why people form them, and even if they didn't want to make money, they still need to in order to stay in business, after all, the money they need to pay their employees and cover other costs involved with running a company doesn't grow out of the walls of their offices, so if they have an idea that they think can increase profits, it's only natural that they would want to try it, though time will tell if it will go through or not.

A move to PC gaming? I like it. But to my TV? My monitor is better than any TV i'll ever own <.<''

Oh and PSN is going paid already for special services, online play will still be free from what I heard, I doubt this will effect either PSN or Xbox Live

1) I like oranges, and 'good business practice' can go expletive itself most of the time.

2) :huh: Do you specialize in the "definition" part of legal documents?

I was talking about this:
http://www.destructoid.com/modern-warfare-2-gets-10-price-hike-on-pc-152049.phtml
and this
http://www.destructoid.com/activision-defends-modern-warfare-2-price-hike-150958.phtml

But I thought that the price hike was in all territories and not just in the UK. :nope:

It seems there is no low to which evil publisher Activision will not sink. Still licking its lips after raising the UK RRP of Modern Warfare 2, Activision has now turned its eyes upon America, singling out PC gamers and deeming that they do not yet pay too much money for computer games. Henceforth, the normal PC game RRP of $50 is being replaced, and Modern Warfare 2 shall cost $60, just like a console game.

Hyperbole much? With the reaction of this guy, you'd think Activision was running medical experiments on babies.

Well, that's the reaction you get from raising prices despite being immensely profitable already. As already stated, there is a difference between being profitable and maximising everywhere just for the heck of it. Mr and Mrs Heckoffit of course being shareholders.

I'm not sure what kind of phenomenon you are actually trying to describe. Are you talking about profit margins, marginal profit, or the share dividend? Because you seem to have mixed them up completely.

The dividend is the money paid to the shareholders, which is set by the board of executives.

The marginal profit is the additional profit that producing one more unit of a product would net the company. It is most commonly calculated as the revenue increase from one more unit, minus the cost increase of one more unit. Since individual units of video games are virtually free to produce, it does in practice end up being solely the revenue increase from one more unit. When the production of one more unit nets the company the same revenue as from the last unit produced, the marginal profit = 0, and that is the ideal case, which is what Activision are striving to achieve.

It's not like Valve, Blizzard or Turbine wouldn't do it if they thought they could get away with it. The only reason why companies aren't raising the prices left right and center is because they aren't sure exactly how price-elastic demand really is in the video game market. It makes perfect sense to attempt to maximize profits by increasing prices, and as has been shown by Activision, the loss from consumers deciding not to purchase the product due to the higher price is much smaller than the increased revenue from the higher price of each unit.

Remember, in order for an increase in the price of 20% to be unjustified, demand must decrease by more than 20%.



The companies exist solely to make money, that is what they should be doing and that is what they are in fact doing, quite well, as it happens.

Either a company is in it for the profits or it isn't, it is foolish to expect them to just settle for smaller profits just because they think they "Get quite enough money already!". If a company is in it for the profits, then it is also in it to maximize profits, it is the natural way of things.

But they don't. They've had years of opportunity to follow suit with EA and Activision, but instead they've chosen to treat their customers with a modicum of respect instead of milking them of all their cash. Turbine is, in fact, turning LOTRO into a free-to-play MMO, which seems to be completely at odds with what you've been suggesting. And Valve have long been known for their high degree of customer service, something which seems copiously absent from Activision.

Do you have any idea idea how hilarious that statement is, if one has even glanced at the WoW-forums?



Yes, LotRO is being turned into a free MMORPG. Are you saying Turbine are doing it because they love the players so huggly wuggly much?

Hardly, they are going to force players to pay for everything they can think of in order to get the full gaming experience, while those who don't pay will be left behind. Clearly, they realized that the game wasn't profitable enough with the conventional subscription model, so they are trying to maximize profits by changing it up.

As for Valve, it sure wasn't my idea to switch the STEAM prices for europeans from dollars to euros but without changing the figures, so a game that cost 50 dollars before now costs 50 euros, a currency that's currently worth about 40% more.

LOTR went "free to play" not out of consumer friendliness, but to get more players to play the game and instead spend money in their market place and so generate more revenue that way. That's how all "free" to play games work.

And Valve sells mods for money(aside of course of making a [censored]load of money off of other developers games).

These are all companies that want and need to make profit. There are no good and bad guys, what Lcars says is absolutly true.
And I agree that Activision's course of action isn't ridiculous at all. They see that other companies are making a ton of money off of their games and naturally they want a piece of that cake.
If there's a high demand for your product, you try to maximize profit, that's how it works in any business.

No doubt things have taken a dramatic dive since Activision took the reins. Or did you think Activision could build something like WoW, with their keen insight into customer value and how to inspire loyalty in their fanbase? And loyalty it is - just take one look at BLIZZCON.

Regardless, business ethics suggests treating customers as people rather than expendable resources to be more profitable in the long run.

But to each their own - I wish Activision all the worst, and hope their model comes to a screeching halt as their endeavors fail one after another. The first of which being CoD, now that they've managed to alienate their star developer Infinity Ward.

No, you're mixing things up.

You're claiming that because some companies such as Turbine and Valve make extra money from other things, that its okay for Activision to do what they're doing. Its not. The difference is that Activision is trying to get more money from something that should, for all purposes, probably cost less now for being in the market as long as it has. Valve gets more money not by jacking up prices, or asking for subscription fees for games like Team Fortress 2, but by releasing ridiculous amounts of content, for free, to get consumers to want to buy the games if they haven't already, in addition to awesome deals on Steam games (both Valve games and other companies games on Steam).

Companies like Valve get more money by offering the customer more. Companies like Activision are just strong arming people.

There is a big difference.

Activision haven't take then rains, Blizzard Entertainment is still it's own company, and isn't run by Activision in any way.

Besides, I've played WoW since before it was released, the whining and complaining has pretty much looked the same every year since then.



You really need to get your facts straight. The success of World of Warcraft had nothing to do with customer loyalty, what it did was it managed to attract a wider audience of people who had never played MMORPG's, and kept them playing with content that required considerable time investments. Most of the people who picked it up probably didn't even know what on earth Blizzard was before that.



You are mixing two concepts, you can't argue that business ethics have any opinion of what constitutes good business practice.

Though, I can't really recall a single instance where a company has ever gained any level of success from not maximizing profits, in one way or another.



Bitter, are we?

Steam gets a share off of every single game sold on Steam. Even from a piss poor indie developers who's games only cost $2, Valve takes it's cut.
And are you so naive that you think those "awesome steam deals" are out of good will? Valve recognized that with those steam deals they can jack up revenue tenfold. Look at the hardcoe steam players, many of them own hundreds of games and of those games have actually only played a small fraction. They trick people into spending money on games they would normally never even consider buying.

And like I said, Team Fortress, Day of Defeat, Counter-Strike...those were all originally mods that Valve turned into full price games.

Oh really? Is that decision really up to you? Isn't it up to the actual customers to decide whether or not they think a price is worth paying for a product or service?



You don't get to decide that, it's up to Activision what prices they put on their products.



Funny, because that's exactly what they did with the european STEAM prices; they jacked up the prices without drawing attention to the fact, clearly hoping that people wouldn't notice the change from 50 dollars to 50 euro.

At least Activision are honest about their plans.



Strong arming?

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything! Customers have a choice in whether or not to buy a product, how on earth is it strong arming to charge a certain price for a certain product?!

Its unfortunate that some people may be eager enough to go along with what Activision is doing. I know some people who would pay to play MW2 online. That's just sad. If no one would go along with Act, then they wont be capable to do what they are doing.

I still don't see what's so sad about it; Activision are providing a service, and they are charging money for it. Such services have been free so far, but that doesn't mean they will always be so.

And that's exactly what I'm doing. Activision are fools for doing this, and it really makes it clear just what they're willing to do to get money.


Funny, I thought it was up to the consumer to decide how much they'll pay.


Weren't they stopping that sometime soon?

In addition, they don't jack up the price after the fact. At least when you buy Team Fortress 2 (sure, it might cost more for Europeans) you aren't getting charged a subscription fee when it wasn't on the god damned box in the first place.


It doesn't take a genius to haves seen what they were going to do even years before the fact.


Strong arming as in, you already bought the game, no where did it say anything about a fee or a service that you're required to sign up for to play a certain part of the game, and then, suddenly, it appears out of nowhere. "My way or the high way."


Such services are usually also mentioned before you buy the game, not two years afterward.

I wouldn't say they are fools. Their current business practice is making them money hand over fist, much more than they previously did.



No, it is up to the consumer how much he or she is willing to pay. The price of the product is decided by the person who sells it.



Why are you so willing to excuse Valve's shady and dishonest business practices?

What the hell you talking about? Nobody said anything that they would start charging a fee now suddenly that you're forced to pay to play.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=254426 Activision is just fed up of MS and Sony making a [censored]-ton of cash off of their product.

We'll see how it goes when a million 12 year olds log on to Live one day and Modern Warfare 2 asks for 15 dollars.


That's what I meant. How much one is going to pay and how much one are willing to pay are different values, sure, but, at least for me, they're usually the average retail of video games, but usually no more (which is why I almost never get collector's editions and what not. I'm not going to shill out 80 dollars for a game).


Why are you so willing to excuse Activision's shady and dishonest business practices?