-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Activision directly responsible for $10 XBL price hike?
- Thread starter Nuclear Muffin
- Start date
The reactions in this thread are just as hilarious as the possibility of Activision getting a payout from the price-hike.
I'm sure the price increase was in talks way longer than KOTICK, THAT GOD DAMN BUSINESS MAN was in talks about subscription service for Call of Duty.
You think MS wants to shell out money to Activision after paying ESPN how much for usage rights or the equipment and manpower to run that service along with all the other services they provide? Get fucking real.
Yeah, there might be the possibility of SOMEBODY getting paid SOMETHING for increasing revenue for THAT PLACE. That's totally a possibility.
But if you want to throw your hands in the air about this then why don't you step outside? This type of fucking shit is happening all of over the world in markets much more meaningful and important than videogames.
And you know what, at least there is actually a company out there legitimizing the industry (through corporate greed and customer dissatisfactory,amirite) instead of wallowing in the niche markets of trenchcoat kids and the socially inept.
Thank god, with that out of the way we've finally saved ourselves from having Game Informer be our GQ. "Reiner suggest this hot orange t-shirt with Link twirling his sword on grass. Buy a pair of cargo pants you can really tie this piece together with that nice studded belt and a pair of hot pink camo flip flops ($2 at Walmart). BUY BAWLS."
I'm sure the price increase was in talks way longer than KOTICK, THAT GOD DAMN BUSINESS MAN was in talks about subscription service for Call of Duty.
You think MS wants to shell out money to Activision after paying ESPN how much for usage rights or the equipment and manpower to run that service along with all the other services they provide? Get fucking real.
Yeah, there might be the possibility of SOMEBODY getting paid SOMETHING for increasing revenue for THAT PLACE. That's totally a possibility.
But if you want to throw your hands in the air about this then why don't you step outside? This type of fucking shit is happening all of over the world in markets much more meaningful and important than videogames.
And you know what, at least there is actually a company out there legitimizing the industry (through corporate greed and customer dissatisfactory,amirite) instead of wallowing in the niche markets of trenchcoat kids and the socially inept.
Thank god, with that out of the way we've finally saved ourselves from having Game Informer be our GQ. "Reiner suggest this hot orange t-shirt with Link twirling his sword on grass. Buy a pair of cargo pants you can really tie this piece together with that nice studded belt and a pair of hot pink camo flip flops ($2 at Walmart). BUY BAWLS."
The entire thread is a strawman. Nobody knows what is really in place. We do know that the xbox is a platform and they have to follow rules like antitrust laws. If they put a pricing model in place for one publisher, they would have to apply it to all publishers.Dyno said:
The same thing happened when EA wanted to use their own servers for sports games. MS accommodated the request and then had to offer the same deal to all publishers.
It's foolish to believe that Activation gets a piece of the pie but none else does. How would MS address the rest of their publishers? They would have no recourse but to give them all the same deal. Instead, it makes more sense to believe MS put a model in place that ensures equity for the publishers.
NullPointer
Member
Besides Netflix you can do all of that with Silver._Bro said:
I do not understand why some people are angry at Activision.
If MS is charging for online multiplayer, it's absolutely, completely fair that (part) of that money goes to the publisher, hopefully to the developer.
People should be enraged that MS is charging for online multiplayer in the first fucking place, but I am afraid that ship already sailed.
WoW players and Xbox Live suscribers have ruined it for us all.
If MS is charging for online multiplayer, it's absolutely, completely fair that (part) of that money goes to the publisher, hopefully to the developer.
People should be enraged that MS is charging for online multiplayer in the first fucking place, but I am afraid that ship already sailed.
WoW players and Xbox Live suscribers have ruined it for us all.
DryvBy
Member
_Bro said:
But.... but....Netflix is on all systems!! (That's the only other thing I use).
I don't hardly ever play demos....
Game Trailers are... online...
And those other games... what does buying a game have to do with paying to play online?
I mean, dude, silver gets you game trailers, demos (maybe not early but..), and I dunno how Netflix works on Xbox but that's free on PS3. I'm strictly talking about paying to play.
Just my opinon either way. :?
Duane Cunningham
Member
_Bro said:
Netflix and ESPN3 on XBL are pretty flimsy an excuse for the price hike by themselves.
If your ISP gives you ESPN3, then you have it and can watch it in any browser. XBL is just a portal. If the 360 had a web browser you could probably watch it anyway. Admittedly, it's a really nice, optimized portal, but that's all it is.
Netflix is the same thing. If you're paying for their streaming services, you can watch it in any browser (or any console, smartphone or newer TV). XBL's Netflix app is a really nice portal, but again, just putting a nice frame around something you're already paying for yourself.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
ElFly said:
dont bring MMO monthly fees into this. its the best bang for the fucking buck you can get mate. 50 cents every day for WoW, gets you almost endless content.
everyone nogs it with their stupid preconceptions before they try them. try them for real, and you will see that its a real service that makes sense.
_Bro said:
Yes.
Okay, now you're being stupid and ranting about "LOL US GAMERS. US GAMERS." For being outraged their possible $10 price-hike XBL service is going to a publisher most don't give a damn about.
That said, half of GAF is misreading the article about the "we get a cut of subscription fees" or whatever the OP posted. I'll have to re-find it and copy-paste it but the OP bolded it and took it out of context to where GAF's knee-jerk reactionaries created a 400 reply thread.
Christ.
Edit:
TFA said:
World of Warcraft = Activision-BLIZZARD, of which Kotick owns Blizzard. He's talking about ATVI-Blizz subscriptions going toward improving Blizzard's MMO/WoW services. He is interested in putting some of that money toward benefiting CoD players either in services or making an MMO or...
Knee-jerking, ahoy-hoy!
How many multiconsole owners here,who are LIVE gold members buy their MP games for the 360 because their friends are on it, the crossgame chat, party system, or whatever?
If LIVE did not have benefits versus the competition it would have folded by now. The fact is there is a large demand for it and Nintendo and Sony would trip over themselves to get a piece of that pie
If LIVE did not have benefits versus the competition it would have folded by now. The fact is there is a large demand for it and Nintendo and Sony would trip over themselves to get a piece of that pie
GitarooMan
Member
The amount of people willing to just buy right into this pure speculation is frankly a bit scary...and we wonder why Kotaku is so popular.
shaowebb
Member
That...that is entirely likely. Jesus, Nuclear Muffin, that was some smooth detective work. Way to read between the lines.
This sounds like classic Bobby Kotick, too. Proudly stating how great he is for never charging anyone for something while he merrily jacks up the prices for everyone across the board in another manner just so he can make sucha statement.
This sounds like classic Bobby Kotick, too. Proudly stating how great he is for never charging anyone for something while he merrily jacks up the prices for everyone across the board in another manner just so he can make sucha statement.
CitizenCope
Member
Glad to see some others don't give a flying fuck. Don't get me wrong this is a discussion board and games and the game industry is something we are all passionate about.
I just went through THE most difficult year financially in my life. Putting a kid through college, a wife on 100% commision in the worst year to be in her industry. My $40-$60 going to Microsoft or whomever in the long run was NEVER an issue.:lol
I use the thing all the time. Those tough times are over but if it wasn't for Live I wouldn't have had some good times with my friends over that year or 7 years for that matter. I didn't have money for concerts, night out for drinks, sporting events. I saw my real life friends over Live and I thank MS for it. Would I rather it be free? HELL YEAH!!!
I just went through THE most difficult year financially in my life. Putting a kid through college, a wife on 100% commision in the worst year to be in her industry. My $40-$60 going to Microsoft or whomever in the long run was NEVER an issue.:lol
I use the thing all the time. Those tough times are over but if it wasn't for Live I wouldn't have had some good times with my friends over that year or 7 years for that matter. I didn't have money for concerts, night out for drinks, sporting events. I saw my real life friends over Live and I thank MS for it. Would I rather it be free? HELL YEAH!!!
DryvBy
Member
_Bro said:
Wait... so Netflix charges Microsoft to have their service on the Xbox 360? Wow, Nintendo and Sony must be smart since I can still get these services on there for only my Netflix price.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I'm just saying to play online... shouldn't pay for it.
Seems like a spurious conclusion in the OP. Microsoft would have eventually raised the price with or without pressure from a third party based on their own research and idea of how many people they would retain versus those who would not resubscribe. I'm all set through next September on a $40 card and then I'm probably done. COD and Halo have run their course, and there isn't much else I use the service for. I already use Netflix on PS3 since the system is much quieter and the rest of the "extras" they have been rolling out don't work as well as a desktop equivalent.
Neuromancer
Member
Is that from Skitchin'? Second guess is one of the Road Rashes.ElFly said:
Do you know what this reminds me of?
When MS agreed to pay Universal a few dollars for every Zune, because of the "chance that they had pirated material on it."
Of course that resulted in very little money for Universal, but what that really was was a strike against Apple to try and make them have to pay similar fees, too.
So I suspect that this is really just a way to strike against Sony. ATVI will then start pressuring Sony to pay them for CoD multiplayer, threatening to withhold the series if they don't, even though Sony doesn't charge for MP play.
The (completely bullshit) argument will be something along the lines of "why should we spend the time developing and testing MP on Sony systems when we get no financial benefit from it, like we do with MS?"
However, I could see this turning into a much bigger headache for MS. I think before long you'll see ALL publishers wanting to be paid royalties for online matches, perhaps being paid X micropennies per hour of server time used. And this, of course, will result in increased XBL fees again.
When MS agreed to pay Universal a few dollars for every Zune, because of the "chance that they had pirated material on it."
Of course that resulted in very little money for Universal, but what that really was was a strike against Apple to try and make them have to pay similar fees, too.
So I suspect that this is really just a way to strike against Sony. ATVI will then start pressuring Sony to pay them for CoD multiplayer, threatening to withhold the series if they don't, even though Sony doesn't charge for MP play.
The (completely bullshit) argument will be something along the lines of "why should we spend the time developing and testing MP on Sony systems when we get no financial benefit from it, like we do with MS?"
However, I could see this turning into a much bigger headache for MS. I think before long you'll see ALL publishers wanting to be paid royalties for online matches, perhaps being paid X micropennies per hour of server time used. And this, of course, will result in increased XBL fees again.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
Nuclear Muffin said:
No more XBL renewals ontop of no more Activision games.
2 Minutes Turkish
Banned
If this is true, then this is my take:
- I defend Live a LOT, because I believe compared to the (console) competition, it's worth paying for. But subsidising a game as average of Black Ops? Fuck that.
- Do PS3 owners worry this will lead to worse and worse ports of CoD for their console? Because Activision will try and sway players to buy the 360 version/a 360 to ave the good version of CoD and pay for online?
Seriously, if this was Bungie doing this thanks to Halo, I'd probably have not much issue with it (but still a bit), because I really love Halo. But not for a product as unpolished as CoD.
Luckily I never pay anywhere near full price for my Live subs.
- I defend Live a LOT, because I believe compared to the (console) competition, it's worth paying for. But subsidising a game as average of Black Ops? Fuck that.
- Do PS3 owners worry this will lead to worse and worse ports of CoD for their console? Because Activision will try and sway players to buy the 360 version/a 360 to ave the good version of CoD and pay for online?
Seriously, if this was Bungie doing this thanks to Halo, I'd probably have not much issue with it (but still a bit), because I really love Halo. But not for a product as unpolished as CoD.
Luckily I never pay anywhere near full price for my Live subs.
NullPointer
Member
It really comes down to this. Don't want to pay for multiplayer gaming? Then don't._Bro said:
We have alternatives.
Kitschkraft
Member
Such horseshit. I hate all these companies.
Azure Dream
Member
jedimike said:
Why do people keep saying it would automatically be some fair deal to all third parties? CoD's a big deal, who's to say Activision didn't strong-arm them on this?
I doubt Activision would pull their titles from the 360 if they didn't get their way, but with their attitude as of late (tinfoil hat time), I personally wouldn't be completely surprised if they had been at least thinking about a foray into the console space themselves. I doubt it was that direct a threat, but that would be a huge loss for MS if even part of the CoD traffic was pulled away. And if there was a third party right now that could attempt it, it'd be Activision. A box with the best versions of CoD with exclusive features, WoW content, those are already two pretty strong legs to stand on.
Or maybe they just threatened to cast their lot heavily into the Sony side, it could be as simple as that. Either way, the big boys get special deals, often in private, as unfortunate as it is, it doesn't really have to be fair for everybody. It rarely is.
Square Triangle
Member
Neuromancer
Member
Never would have guessed but that makes sense now.ElFly said:
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Kulock said:
If you think that any large third party publisher has any interest whatsoever in creating a console, then you have no understanding whatsoever of the publishing business.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Interesting thread.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
If this is true, what's the potential for MS to be providing other publishers with a cut of the newly implemented $10 increase.
TBQH it actually seems like a very smart move on the part by MS to do this.
TBQH it actually seems like a very smart move on the part by MS to do this.
Similar threads
- Locked