| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (37)

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 11:46AM Lokasaki said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Sorry but this guy is a leech on the gaming industry. I have boycotted all Activision games because of him.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 12:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Bobby my friend, it takes *BEEEEEP* all to 'satisfy' the two digit IQs you call your customers, so be blunt and say you're going to milk these morons for all their allowance and welfare cheques are worth.

Kotick garners a lot of hate from people that do not understand that the more money the mental thirteen year olds that enjoy Modern Warfare 2 spend on his products, the fewer of them can afford paying for games I enjoy playing.

The man is a *DO NOT TAUNT HAPPY FUN EDITOR* genius.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 11:58AM dudemanjac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I'm not boycotting anything (just got in from picking up Transformers), it does bother me that this guy wants to find new ways to charge us for we are already enjoying.. It's missing a persistent story and an economy. Those maps would have to get way bigger, too. It just seems like everything is being made into an rpg. How much money do you need? You have the top selling game of all time, and you are about to release a rehash later this year and will probably sell just as many.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 12:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
quick, he dropped an earthbind totem....shoot it!!

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 12:04PM eNTi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
kotick or rather *MEEP*? he's an *BADABLEEP* or manager or banker or whatever you call the idiots of the nation these days. *BEEPED BY HAPPY FUN EDITOR*

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 12:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"I would have Call of Duty be an online subscription service tomorrow."

Coming from Kotick, I totally believe that--not that he'd give us an incredibly deep and well-supported MMO but that he'd simply slap a subscription fee onto the games people are already playing (without adding anything to them). Knowing that greedy blight on gaming, he'd probably make it a $25/month fee, too ... with microtransactions: pay extra everytime you want to use a certain perk or kill streak reward.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 1:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Don't give him any ideas lol you might have to pay per bullet!
Reply

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 4:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I believe you're right.
Bobby Kotick is not to be trusted. Just look at his face.
Reply

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 12:40PM Amblin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is just another marketing spin-a-thon.

Do the Math.

Game £50 a (now) annual purchase.
MMO Sub £10-15 per month.

So Kotick is saying you want to pay 2-3 the price of the game to play on a subscription basis. Will they give you 2 -3 games worth of content per year?

NO.


Another blatant grab for your wallet by a shrewd businessman. I hate him with a passion but respect his business accumen.

DO NOT FALL FOR IT!

Posted: Jun 23rd 2010 4:03AM ChromeBallz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's not like you get a "full game" for those 50 quid in the first place.
Reply

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 12:41PM Budukahn said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I sense a forthcoming Call of Duty content update offering a sparkly tank for $25.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 12:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
DIAF Kotick. We know you have no interest in us having "fun".

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 12:58PM Its Utakata stupid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Off the side slightly...

...does Bobby Kotick remind anyone of that Joe Pesci character off of the movie Goodfellows?

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 12:59PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
I don't understand this blind, scathing resist to change by these commentors. I guess when I put it like that...it sounds like human nature. There's also the community's hatred of Bobby Kotick. Because videogame companies aren't supposed to make money, right? I think it's great that WSJ is covering a videogame CEO, and I'd already seen the article on their site.

Main point being though. I think the man is right. There's tremendous industry resistance to change involved, but a CoD MMO would be great. It doesn't need to be an rpg. You buy the disc and get the game and 30 days of online time, and pay...$5 month or less for more multiplayer. They can have REAL multiplayer support. New maps every 2-4 weeks. They don't need to roll out a new $60 disc every year and can put development costs into what players carr about - the multiplayer.

There's no reason it would cost more anyway. $5/month is $60/year - ie the equivalent of a new disc a year.
Thumbs up for this guy recognizing what a great opportunity this would be.
(no matter how much of a "corporate jackass" community consensus says he is. Thanks for covering this massively!)

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 1:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You are assuming it will only be $5 a month. I am sure it will be $15 a month since they have seen with other games people are willing to pay that.

Also he is probably talking about console games since Activision, other then Blizzard could really careless about the PC market. So $60 for the box, $180 a year and if you are on Xbox its like $50 a year for Xbox live. So its like the price of 4 games for a couple of new maps every other month.

Nothing wrong when a company wants to make money. But when that same company pretty much wants to ring every last penny from you then its a problem. Its like when they had Divix DvDs back in the day. You paid for it then had like 5 views of it before you had to pay again to unlock the movie a second time. We saw how that worked out. These companies have to realize we are not ATM's anymore. The days of just putting everything on credit is over.
Reply

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 1:33PM Its Utakata stupid said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
...oh, don't mind me, I'm just an apologist for consumer rights. You know, "buyer be ware" type who see red flags when less than scrupulous gaming execs comes up with hair-brained ideas that could end up selling us crap down the road. Just saying...
Reply

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 1:39PM Crode said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The problem is it wont be an MMO. It will be the same game with a subscription attached.
Reply

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 2:25PM Wisdomandlore said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's a bit naive to think that Activision would only charge $5 a month, or that there wouldn't be a new release every year. In reality, there would probably be a $60 upfront fee, $15 a month after that, and every year there would be a $40-60 expansion. This is the man, after all, who doesn't want to support franchises that can't be milked each and every year. On top of that, I'm sure there would be "premium" content subscribers could pay more for.
Reply

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 2:29PM Samael said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It is hilarious that you are thinking that it will be a benefit to the players in any way.

Hey I am all capitalistic and such, and I love capitalism, it allows me to choose. The fact that is disheartening is that there are people like you in the free countries of the world. People who believe in Kotick, and that he will keep the sub price at $5/month and release new maps for free.

Knowing him, this is more likely the structure.

$10/month for accessing the game. $5 for each map that you want to play in. $12.99 for a map pack of 3 maps, YOU SAVE $2, isn't he awesome. And $3 for new costume options such as headpiece or some such, and $5 for new guns, or attachments to old ones. Nothing game breaking in the store, mostly cosmetic fluff with a few items.

While you live in a dream world where the guy who said "I want to take the fun out of gaming" is somehow going make gaming fun, the rest of us likes to live in reality and in reality, I have a limited income, like most others.
Reply

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 4:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Samael, I don't "believe in Kotick". I put my trust in economics. If you'll notice, I pulled the $5/month out of a hat. It's a nice round number. It's reasonable. And it amounts to $60/year, $55 for the first year, which is equivalent to a new game and so not unreasonable. He never said $5/month. He never said a CoD sub would ever happen. I'm just being logical. You can tell me the CEO of a great company is not logical all you want, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Please stop foaming and frothing with irrational hatred. It doesn't make good business sense to charge $15/month for that kind of service.

Just because Blizzard, CCP, NCSoft or whoever else is already extorting that amount from you for dedicated servers and massive amounts of content, doesn't necessitate a completely different genre of game picking the same price point.

*insert obligatory ad hominem*
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW