Activision was adamant in saying they will never charge for CoD online . But from a business/shareholder standpoint, that's not the correct attitude.

In a new research note issued today, Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter says that Activision's failure to monetize the online multiplayer portion of Call of Duty is a big ol' slap in the face. In fact, he calls it "a betrayal of shareholder trust" and adds:

"We were disappointed to hear Activision's new head of publishing flatly deny the company's plans to charge for multiplayer. We firmly believe that until the publishers address monetisation of multiplayer, game sales will continue to be challenged by the publishers' altruistic decision to provide significantly more entertainment value per hour than ever in history."

Without the shareholders, things don't happen. At least, not for a massive corporation like Activision, which must continue to make their stockholders happy on a continual basis. Gamers have to understand that the bigwigs behind the scenes, including investors, must have a positive outlook. Finished Pachter:

"Considering that each of the publicly traded publishers exists to maximise shareholder value, we view their reticence to monetise multiplayer as a betrayal of shareholder trust, and can only hope that each implements plans to address the impact of increasing free multiplayer going forward.

Even if we are mistaken and charging for multiplayer doesn't result in packaged goods growth, we think that investors will be satisfied if publisher revenues once again begin to grow due to contribution from multiplayer monetisation."

He also said "monetization of multiplayer is one of the greatest opportunities for publishers" and "it would be a serious strategic error to pass on this opportunity." Well, despite CEO Hirshberg's comments about "never charging" for online, we can't help but remember Bobby Kotick's statement, where he said he'd implement a premium charge for CoD online "tomorrow," if he could.

Well, if the shareholders are asking for it…

Subscribe
Notify of
94 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
InBlackestNight
InBlackestNight
9 years ago

They start charging, they can kiss the franchise goodbye. Or at the very least a large portion of sales. Personally I don't buy games where story and single-player are treated like an afterthought, but this is a must-buy game for tons of people and charging for online play is a death sentence.


Last edited by InBlackestNight on 12/6/2010 12:17:31 PM

Shams
Shams
9 years ago

From what i heard through the grape-vine, the xbox live gold membership fee was partly increased due to Activision. Six of the 10 dollar price hike goes to Activision, after Activision insisted that the primary source of xbox live traffic and revenue is due to their own franchises, and hence, they deserve a piece of the profits.

After MS agreed to split a fraction of their xbox live subscription fees with Activision, Kotex reversed his previous stance, and insisted that Activision will never charge for COD subscriptions (only because, at least for xbots, they're already doing so). I'm pretty they had their shareholder conferences to announce these details privately, and this is where this news leak comes from.

Hey, well, at least psn COD players still get a free ride still, and thank Sony for keeping the psn free (and the xbots for subsidizing it 😉

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

"Hey, well, at least psn COD players still get a free ride still, and thank Sony for keeping the psn free (and the xbots for subsidizing it ;)"

LOL! tools.

FatherSun
FatherSun
9 years ago

That sounds very much the opposite of MicroSofts business model. Am I to believe that Activision has that much power among the XBox community. If so.. Then… WOW.. Just wow!

BikerSaint
BikerSaint
9 years ago

Yes, I read a couple of articles citing that anti-vision wanted XBL money too.

Plus, if any of you have kept a sharp eye on Kotex, then you also know he's been threatening to take his business away from ALL consoles and put everything under his control, by starting his own anti-vision cloud service.

So in reality, Playstation gameers get COD for the regular price of $59.99, but kotex has just hosed the 360 players, by actually making them pay $66.99 to him for the same game.

And if you think about it, they're actually paying $69.99 for it because the secondary greed-monger, MS has slapped their own $4 increase onto it too.

And even if you're never buying a COD, you are still giving anti-vision $7 of MS's XBL increase, just for the privilege not to play COD at all.


Last edited by BikerSaint on 12/6/2010 5:00:53 PM

Qubex
Qubex
9 years ago

Its disgusting… I will never pay for that and they will lose millions of customers because of it…

Greed Greed Greed… I hate it and they can go to hell!

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

helgso
helgso
9 years ago

I love playing Modern Warfare 2 online. If Activision starts adding online fees they can say good-bye to me on the servers.

dillonthebunny
dillonthebunny
9 years ago

share holders obviously are either not gamers or bloody rich gamers.. either way they are bloody rich and want to stay that way, gamers or not.

bye bye cod.

maxpontiac
maxpontiac
9 years ago

Who are we fooling?

People paid for Xbox Live when it is $50.00.
They paid for it when Live went to $60.00.

They'll pay for COD as well.

Call it a hunch 😉

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

True. I don't think this will be as doomed as some believe. There are just too many mediocre people out there who are far to eager to pay for their next mediocre fix. 😉

maxpontiac
maxpontiac
9 years ago

What cracks me up is that jaggies are excused on the COD games, but reason for interweb outcries and lowering of rating scores on GT5.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

I know. It's hypocracy and exposes their anti-Sony bias.

FatherSun
FatherSun
9 years ago

Make no mistake. They WILL charge for online play. It is just a matter of time.

mastiffchild
mastiffchild
9 years ago

Not for a good while I doubt. Sure, COD is a massive franchise but , even as someone who can accept it's a good game at it's core (though I've bought my last Acti game for the foreseeable future), I can't see how even fans can't see it's basically the same(Blops) game this time as for the three previous years.

All they change is the SP which is increasingly slapdash and reliant on ageing nonsense like never ending respawning enemies making reaching a certain point the reason for progress rather than actually, you know, shooting in a shooter. Aside from that we get offered daft scripts and a MP that , though the reason most play, is almost identical to COD4 just with new skins and weapons and streak rewards etc.

In short, and including the fact that MoH, BFBC2 and KZ are ALL NOT likely to be making an extra charge beyond the thing which ALREADY monetises(crap word) MP online shooters-effin map pack DLC, there's not room for Activision to go alone in making their shooter pay to play online. They already cut all the R&D they can, cut every testing corner they can(MW2 and BO are buggy messes because of the lack of QA and beta testing)and refuse to, even as market leader, introduce anything above creaky P2P!!

People aren't THAT sheepy that they will literally take EVERYTHING Kotick thinks up and the competition isn't so lame that people won't turn to it should Activision milk a bit too hard and without actual improvements next year I'd imagine COD dominance may subside a bit WITHOUT them risking extra effin charges. Remember, all this is happening while Blizzard admit that WoW has reached a [plateau and must now keep gamers as a TV show would viewers. Not the time for Acti to risk a massive profit whore like COD.

Qubex
Qubex
9 years ago

If that is the case Maxpontiac, I can't feel sorry for people how can't pay off their homes or get into debt when every dollar has become critical in most people's lives – I for one think of it as money down the drain.

I mean bye your game, get enjoyment and value for it playing online, but to have to pay to play online is ridiculous. That is why I never bought an xBox…

Matter of principles.

Q!

"play.exprience.enjoy"

MadKatBebop
MadKatBebop
9 years ago

That would suck for the millions of people that ply COD online. I'm all about the singleplayer so this doesn't concern me, but I'd feel bad for everyone else.

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
9 years ago

Of course the shareholders want a monetised online scheme, because it means more revenue for the company, and more money to line their pockets. That doesn't necessarily make it the smart move though. Looking at it from another perpective, if it costs the consumer to play online, less of them may choose to do so, which would result in lost revenue. Admittedly, that probably wouldn't happen. I mean, it's CoD. Besides, do they not already have enough income from this? I think, over ten million copies sold already, as well as ridiculously priced map packs that we know are on the way… Eh, to each their own.

BTW, this may be an outburst of jealousy that I don't have their kind of money, but at least I'll admit that.
Peace.

Gamer Girl Gemo
Gamer Girl Gemo
9 years ago

With all these games coming out, who really does?

SixSpeedKing
SixSpeedKing
9 years ago

Yeah I mean already from MW2 + COD:BO they have already raked in over 1 billion dollars and counting. And now they want to charge for online? That's just pure greed hard at work for you.

Also last COD I bought was MW2. I don't play online all that much but if they were to start charging I would stop playing altogether. They will not get anymore money from me.


Last edited by SixSpeedKing on 12/6/2010 5:52:55 PM

Amazingskillz
Amazingskillz
9 years ago

They some greeeeedy bastards.

Clamedeus
Clamedeus
9 years ago

I agree.

Amazingskillz
Amazingskillz
9 years ago

I love Sony for giving us the free PSN!

maxpontiac
maxpontiac
9 years ago

Indeed. And when one considers that Live offers nothing more then a party system and chat, they can keep it.

Phoenix
Phoenix
9 years ago

Let us hope they keep it free for the ps4.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

Bank machine. Game are just something that's bought and sold to these people. Nothing more.

Alienange
Alienange
9 years ago

I think tomorrow would be better if Pachter just rolled up into a ball and expired.

daizycutter
daizycutter
9 years ago

in fact let them charge for the online multiplayer ..it would be the the end of the franchise online, and then a new FPS will come out and replace it until the next time…let the greed consume itself

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
9 years ago

which will be battlefield bad company 3. Heck, battlefield bad company 2 already takes it.

airwedge1
airwedge1
9 years ago

they do charge for multiplayer it's called the $60 we payed for the game. Take multiplayer away from a cod game, and you get a short below standard last gen experience that'll sell an insignificant number of copies. I hate the short sighted overlook people have sometimes. Same thing with them thinking that they don't get any money out of a re-sold game. They did, they got the original $60

Fane1024
Fane1024
9 years ago

airwedge1,

Agreed. I've been saying it for years: the used game market actually drives new games sales because many of the people who buy the game on day one do so with the intention of trading it for the next game and recouping part of their money. Without a used game vendor like GameStop, those people would buy fewer games at full price.

People only have so much money to spend on games.

Essentially, the industry can choose (greatly simplified example): sell one new million units at full price and have many of those games re-sold a number of times OR sell two million new units mostly at half price, since people will wait for price drops OR sell five hundred thousand units at full price because they never reduced the game to budget price and people had to choose whether to get game A or game B instead of being able to afford both.


Last edited by Fane1024 on 12/6/2010 4:39:26 PM

BTNwarrior
BTNwarrior
9 years ago

what those shareholders don't understand is that in charging for online play activision would be effictivly destroying their #2 money maker

Gamer Girl Gemo
Gamer Girl Gemo
9 years ago

I think the money that's been paid for just getting the game should be enough. I understand the whole business stuff and needing to keep up the money and whatnot… But isn't the money they're making off the games just plain enough?
If they ever started charging for online play of CoD, I'd have to say goodbye to my days of online free-for-alls. I wouldn't pay to just have fun with my friends online.
All I can say is that they may lose a lot of online players because of the fee and it would hardly be worth the charge anymore. So keep it free, kapeesh?


Last edited by Gamer Girl Gemo on 12/6/2010 1:03:16 PM

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

Don't reply to the spam bots they're bots. Just report them with the yellow /! button. 🙂

Gamer Girl Gemo
Gamer Girl Gemo
9 years ago

Awesome, thanks for the info 🙂

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

No problem. 🙂

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
9 years ago

No, don't do anything. I see them all and they're gone the instant I see them.

FatherSun
FatherSun
9 years ago

In response to the question. Is the money they are making not enough. No! Its never enough.

Hezzron
Hezzron
9 years ago

Hmmm. If Activision were to start charging for COD online play, I wouldn't buy the game. That would give me some money to spend on something else, like Activision stock. Then again, with me not buying the game, surely Activision stock would plummet, making it a bad investment.

With talk like this, I'm starting to think Activision wants me to hang onto my money……and for the sake of his reputation, Kotick might want to put his foot in his mouth soon. Pachter is making big strides in taking "douchbag" to the next level.

ZettaiSeigi
ZettaiSeigi
9 years ago

They obviously just want more money, and are striking while the iron is hot. I can't see why they still have to charge any amount for online access when sales alone for the game is enough to cover for anything they spend for maintaining the servers. COD earns billions, for crying out loud. Don't tell me they need more money than that!

Personally, I don't think there's anything else Activision can do that would redeem them from all the mistakes they made this generation. And yes, my PS3 library is Activision-free and it'll remain like that.

Ludicrous_Liam
Ludicrous_Liam
9 years ago

OMG A GIRL GAMER [email protected]@K!!!!!!!!

Just kidding. BTW COD sells at 45 pounds in the UK (Like $70 odd), its like it feels special compared to other games lol.

My friends, (casual gamers) would not pay a fee for cod, I don't think they're THAT delerious. Some even admitted it was a re-hash. But yh let them make a fee and lets see it fail.

ZettaiSeigi
ZettaiSeigi
9 years ago

If you're referring to me with the "Girl Gamer" comment, you are mistaken. LOL I'm a fan of Andrea Corr, that's why she's my avatar. :-p

And I'm not the one that thumbed you down. Whoever it was, I hope Activision was paying him some amount of money for it. Haha!

Nynja
Nynja
9 years ago

Haha, charge for online play? Go ahead Activision, you won't be getting free money from me… at least not anymore.

I hope they do. I would love to see Activision drive the nail in the coffin.

Nynja
Nynja
9 years ago

To Thumbs Down Person:

Ahh, poo on you 😉

ZettaiSeigi
ZettaiSeigi
9 years ago

Someone's obviously upset that we are not sheeps that would just do anything that a greedy publisher wants us to do. It amuses me. 🙂

big6
big6
9 years ago

I'll just play multiplayer games that don't charge online, when Activision monetizes their online.

If Activision goes ahead, I fully expect EA to follow suit, shortly after.

big6
big6
9 years ago

I think when/if they charge for online, there will be MILLIONS of takers
Maybe not you or me, but the 11-year old kid who is begging their dad will get his way. =)

How many people in that scenario? 5 Million? more?

Nynja
Nynja
9 years ago

I hate to believe it, but I think you are right.

If it were MY kid, I'd make them pay for it themselves.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

LOL! I i can't wait for the day my kid turns 11 and begs me for something like this so I can give him a resounding NO!

Parents need to man up. 🙂

Nynja
Nynja
9 years ago

Agreed! AND…If I ever heard my kid screaming the crap I hear (and sometimes say myself) online, I'd slap the headset off their head, pick up the mic and scold them while everyone was listening.

GamerKid123
GamerKid123
9 years ago

Huge CoD sales = FREE multiplayer.. Pay to play multiplayer = Decrease in sales due to lack of interest? Therefor Pay to play = Less money surely?
I thought Shareholders were supposed to be smart.