Ben-DutkaIt seems as if all big publishers are looking for ways to monetize the used game market; we've got the Online Pass from EA, for instance, and both Sony and Activision have expressed interest in similar programs.
However, Call of Duty: Black Ops developer Treyarch would rather try a different approach: simply produce a product few owners would ever wish to trade in. This according to what studio boss Mark Lamia told MCV , where he said the game's multiplayer will keep trade-ins down. Said Lamia:
"I want to take that in the other direction and bring consumers really great reasons to keep their games, rather than trade them in.
Multiplayer is critical to the success of this series. It has such tremendous staying power – there are millions of people playing Call of Duty every day. It’s entertaining people on a magnitude that’s mind-blowing and we work really hard to make sure it’s supported for a long time."
EA and THQ already have used one-time download codes that charge gamers to unlock the multiplayer mode in certain titles ( Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11 and UFC Undisputed 2010 included). But Treyarch says they'd rather "support the hell" out of their upcoming shooter, which should work towards dissuading owners from getting rid of the game in the near future. Finished Lamia:
"We’re going to support the hell out of Black Ops. That will be our focus post-release: making sure we keep our fans engaged, and hopefully as a result, they’ll want to keep playing our game and won’t want to trade it in."
Well, that's another way to go. By now, we figure most understand CoD's longevity comes almost exclusively from the multiplayer, so few are likely to be disappointed. They get it going in. Still, Treyarch's idea isn't bad.
Related Game(s): Call of Duty: Black Ops
it will be interesting to see what they come up with. ea's online pass is a major p.i.t.a.
Is "support" codeword for $15 DLC?
I just hope it isnt reused maps like in MW2
took the words right out of my mouth proxy
At least you're getting something for your 15 bucks, as opposed to just paying to play online.
What are we getting exactly? Rehashed maps and a few new ones?
No thanks. Ill save my money for more deserving content and developers.
usual happy self eh jawk?
At the very least trey are taking a different tack in stopping people trading in their games and making people play and enjoy the game.
we all know you're a downer – so your comments on cod dont count for diddly.
HAHA ok guy. you still didn't answer my question. What exactly are we getting for the over priced DLC?
I can guess – but cant say for definite, neither can you. Yet you still feel the need to bash.
i asked a question. We have seen what DLC means coming from Activision and CoD. SO…again….What are we getting for the their over priced content?
So far is been garbage.
Last edited by Jawknee on 9/10/2010 2:22:26 PM
All dlc is overpriced, but at least trey are giving you something rather than just paying to play online.
might as well go and get an xbox.
Yep, and of course it has to be MP, when will developers get that a lot of people don't do MP. I'm so sick of this MP give us some SP extensions to your games and maybe we won't sell to Gamestop.
I happen to think EA's idea to charge used game buyers $10 to access the MP is actually more fair then saturating the market with mediocrity.
Not all DLC is over priced. Naughty Dog has proven that time and time again.
Bit short-sighted…
…dont you think you end up paying to play online and then for dlc as well?
It's just layering of additional costs.
Not at all. $10 will give the used buyer access to the entire multiplayer experience vs $14.99 for maps.
Last edited by Jawknee on 9/10/2010 3:50:05 PM
@Digitalstorm
I'm not following your train of thought here. No offense, intended, honestly. Can you elaborate more on a specific issue?
I am curious about what they mean by continuing to support the multiplayer… servers don't exist. Players host games from home, which consistently leads to hick-ups in gameplay. And glitches in the DLC continue to be present. You can STILL hide INSIDE a rock on one map. It's a very well known issue, and is all over the internet including Activision's forums.
I kinda agree with Jawk on this one. I'm not seeing any support aside from the addition of multiplayer map packs that remain to this day to be glitchy and simple re-makes.
Those maps are the easiest thing to program in a game. Minimal work got them top dollar.
I dunno… I appreciate DLC as much as the next guy, but for $30 for both DLC, we should expect more quality. $30 is half a new game, for craps sake!
It's quite a simple concept…
HAVE to pay $10 to access an on line portion of a game.
or…
have online straight out of the box and then CHOOSE whether you want to pay for dlc.
You do realize that if there was that 10$ online fee, it would NOT apply to those that buy the game new, right?
These are 2 different games and 2 very different developers Jawknee. I'll put money on it that Treyarch will not use maps from W@W in black ops as DLC. So we would be paying for totally new maps. Do I think that $15 is overpriced hell yes, considering we got just as many maps for a better game in KZ2 for 1/3 of the price compared to MW2.
Let's also not forget about the zombie maps. Those alone are worth a good price considering how much time I've got on each map!
Digital storm:
"have online straight out of the box and then CHOOSE whether you want to pay for dlc."
No thanks,
I'll take more free dlc and then CHOOSE whether I want to pay multiplayer. Which I won't.
Techy, Only game I've bought all dlc for is SP only Mass Effect 2. THAT is a good game that you never want to trade in and has nothing to do with multiplayer. A lot of developers could learn from that.
Would have been nicer if dlc was cheaper but can't have everything I guess.
Make good games and people will keep them. Saturate the market and people will trade them.
same ol' record.
Kind of like your beloved mediocre franchise?
rinse and repeat.
Digital, what about Jawk's comment was offensive? Why do you need to come in guns ablazin' with a mantra like "rinse and repeat" and "Same old record"?
I feel like you could contribute to this much better if you put more intelligent thought into it. But everyone can see you're just trying to attack Jawknee. Why is it so bad if he doesn't agree with you? He said NOTHING to offend you until you attacked him first.
If you don't believe me, just notice one thing…
Who is getting the "thumbs up" comments? (Thumbs down don't matter unless there's alot. Some people sporadically thumb down all the time).
And the ONLY reason is because he's offering decent comments. You're just being insulting. Quite frankly, you sound loud and a bit prickish.
Have you got a second login jawk?
Last edited by D1g1tal5torm on 9/10/2010 5:00:05 PM
If he does, this account isn't it. And I doubt he has 6 accounts for all those thumbs up.
Additionally, I think some of our past debates would be something quite strange for one person to do just to make a comment at you in the future. (We have some differing views on some political issues, as can be seen in past comment sections)
Besides, even the site admin can vouch for my Canadian status.
I assure you, you do sound like a mean person, Jawk or no Jawk.
Any regulars here would know we're two very different people.
Jawk was right about one thing though… you do avoid questions. Instead of addressing the many questions I posed to you, you felt it necessary to avoid them by claiming he and I are the same individual.
Stop being a coward and answer me. You're better than that.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 9/10/2010 5:14:00 PM
I'll believe that when I see it. For me personally, I would have loved to see Fallout 3 just get the Vegas expansion as DLC (for example).
But when Madden sells nearly 1 million copies on both PS3 and 360 this month, I know it'll never happen.
What are you talking about? New Vegas isn't an expansion.
That's why I said this —-
"I would have loved to see"
I think you misunderstood me.
thats retarded
max, I'm dsperately hoping that New Vegas proves to be so huge and entertaining that we will be convinced it couldn't possibly have been dlc or an expansion pack.
And thanks for reminding me of the 2nd game I've ever bought all the dlc for. I love my PS3 Fallout 3 (despite its painful glitches)
New $15 map packs every month then.
I reckon Treyarch will start with the best of intentions, and then Activision will eff it over and everything will be a piss take.
So than mean weekly instead of a couple of months DLC for $20? LOL
I think Wager matches was a good idea and look forward to trying some of that. The "one in the chamber" looks crazy too. Glad to hear they're not just putting out their game and then making a break for it. Support from devs should be a mainstay this gen.
yawn, What is Call of Poo ?
Don't pretend you don't know.
Hes not very clever with these attempts to bash a game. In another thread he said he never heard of Halo because he didn't play shooters.
Uh huh…
Good luck with that Treyarch. Somehow I think you're fooling yourselves, but since MW2 sold ludicrous numbers, whether trade-ins are a problem or not won't impact on whether you make a profit, it will only impact how offensively large that profit it…
I wonder whether 'support' means expensive, "must have" DLC?
Amazing isn't it? How some of these developers aren't satisfied with good sales. Profitable sales. They think they need to hit MW2 sales in order to stay relevant.
They are focused on making their games a MW2 success instead of…well making their game a success.
boring – the pair of you.
go and play/comment on your beloved jprg's.
Trying to be all elitist and failing miserably.
Last edited by D1g1tal5torm on 9/10/2010 2:04:39 PM
Yes, because FPS are much better than JRPG's.
/
you need to think before typing.
You can both stop now.
hmm… seems like elitist is the same as speaking the truth this time. but anyway, i guess its our fault for liking deeper games than ones thats just point and click. although i also like playing bad company 2 but only with people i know.
its a fact that most devs are using modern warfare 2 sales as a measuring stick to how well their games fare in the market. part of the reason some games are adopting "twitch gamer" mentality. Its a fact that games like mw2 and black ops, mediocre by comparison to exclusives, will sell a lot. Its a fact that their dlcs are overpriced and hyped to be the must have status even though they only gave you 3 new maps and 2 rehashed ones. It is a fact that since mw1, call of duty followed its format and even went as far as to use the same engine rendering the following call of duty games to be mw1 reskinned. Its also a fact that instead of focusing on the overall quality of MW2, they focused on the multiplayer aspect to sell their game. however, even with their "focus", the game still came out as mess and a half.
Sorry Ben, its just comedy to me how much stock people put into these FPS as opposed to deep, challenging, meaningful and story rich games…like a good RPG.
This used to be an industry that rewarded greatness. It seems be going the way of the music and movie industry where mediocrity triumphs and it stinks.
Last edited by Jawknee on 9/10/2010 2:54:52 PM
@Jawknee
I don't always think that it's the developers but the publishers. I usually see the developers as the artists making a game for the pure enjoyment of their fans and pushing themselves to see what they can accomplish. I often see the publishers as the ones coming up with ideas to maximize their profits.
I agree however its the developers who are getting in bed with publishers like Activision. No one forces these developers to sign with the publishers. So while not all the blame can or should be placed at the developers feet, i think some of it can.
embrace the change rather than fight it.