• 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?

_Bro

Banned
les papillons sexuels said:
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.
dear thread,

READ THIS
jedimike said:
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.

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.
 
_Bro said:
dear thread,

READ THIS

great thanks...

I just anted to reiterate that I actually like this policy. It would ensure that publishers strive for the best quality in their games in an attempt to earn the largest share of online play time and therefore any funds ms has set in place... It's like a way of forcing competition between developers, and therefore increasing the overall quality of those games. And isn't that what most of you free market supporters want...
 

C4Lukins

Junior Member
We probably will not get any clarification on this until after Thanksgiving, but I doubt it is true that Activision is getting a cut. Could be a misquote or poorly chosen words by Kotick. My guess is that ESPN 3, the free online poker game that MS is working on, and just a general increase in expenses related to expanding XBOX Live are the reasons for the price increase. I am sure it will be clarified one way or another eventually.
 
If you have cable television of any kind beyond the super basic package with only local channels, you are paying roughly $1.20 of your cable bill directly to Disney for ESPN, whether you watch that channel or not.

Chew on that, GAF! :lol
 

mj1108

Member
Unknown Soldier said:
If you have cable television of any kind beyond the super basic package with only local channels, you are paying roughly $1.20 of your cable bill directly to Disney for ESPN, whether you watch that channel or not.

Chew on that, GAF! :lol

Very, very true...although I thought ESPN was more in the $3-$4 range?

Anyway... I think the point is, if true it sets up a bad precedent where other publishers can come in and try to do the same thing to the point where the price for Gold keeps increasing and increasing and increasing and increasing to accommodate all of these publishers who want their piece of the pie.
 

Lothars

Member
C4Lukins said:
We probably will not get any clarification on this until after Thanksgiving, but I doubt it is true that Activision is getting a cut. Could be a misquote or poorly chosen words by Kotick. My guess is that ESPN 3, the free online poker game that MS is working on, and just a general increase in expenses related to expanding XBOX Live are the reasons for the price increase. I am sure it will be clarified one way or another eventually.


I doubt we will actually ever get clarification regarding this but I wouldn't be surprised if MS is paying activision with Live fees even though Activision definitely doesn't deserve it.
 

Flakster99

Member
Bboy AJ said:
Great work, OP.

Fuck you, Activision, and fuck you, MS.

Damn right. As a Gold member, I don't care nor do I play any of the CoD games, they aren't my cup of tea, so a BIG FU to all parties involved.
 
Maybe that $10 increase is paid out to various publishers based on the Xbox Live usage their games generate? Activision would still make a shitload of money, but no anti-trust laws would be violated.
 

sflufan

Banned
In order for this conspiracy to work, exactly what kind of leverage would Lord Kotick and Company have over Microsoft?

I mean, it's not like they're going to stop developing CoD games for the 360, so what exactly was the alternative that ActivLizzard used to gain leverage? Development of an independent CoD.net (ala battle.net)?
 

mavs

Member
TheSeks said:
Edit:

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!

You're wrong and you can't read.

_Bro said:
dear thread,

READ THIS

You're wrong too. There's no anti-trust issue here. The only reason MS would have to pay other publishers is if they demanded it and had a good enough hand to win, which they don't.
 

Dead Man

Member
Unknown Soldier said:
If you have cable television of any kind beyond the super basic package with only local channels, you are paying roughly $1.20 of your cable bill directly to Disney for ESPN, whether you watch that channel or not.

Chew on that, GAF! :lol
Of course, you have agreed to pay for ACCESS to that channel. You don't have access to COD unless you buy the game separately.
 
MrNyarlathotep 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.

There's always an asshole. At this point, the 360, PS3 and Wii are all aged technology starting to show their limits, yet their lifespans are being extended via enhanced motion controls, supposedly for a span of a few years more. If that's true, there is a gap where an aggressive starter could get a decent footing, even in this downtrodden economy, and Activision is probably the one with the strongest positioning to pull it off, if they so decided. I didn't say it was going to happen or even likely, but that it was a potential threat they could leverage.

"No understanding whatsoever," seriously, you can just say "I strongly disagree with that" without being a dick about it?
 

_Bro

Banned
mavs said:
You're wrong and you can't read.



You're wrong too. There's no anti-trust issue here. The only reason MS would have to pay other publishers is if they demanded it and had a good enough hand to win, which they don't.
You're wrong.
 

markot

Banned
sflufan said:
In order for this conspiracy to work, exactly what kind of leverage would Lord Kotick and Company have over Microsoft?

I mean, it's not like they're going to stop developing CoD games for the 360, so what exactly was the alternative that ActivLizzard used to gain leverage? Development of an independent CoD.net (ala battle.net)?

That this and the other.

Blame Activision all you want, but microsoft is the one that pays em for 'exclusive'! map packs. Its gotta get that money from somewhere.
 

zlatko

Banned
If this is true... as a gamer/person with some standards/morals I will sell my 360 and never buy another Call of Duty.(I'd swear off Acti altogether, but Blizzard is too awesome to give up)

Can we get a confirm on this? I...don't want to believe. Hell I don't know who to be more pissed at if true.
 

markot

Banned
zlatko said:
If this is true... as a gamer/person with some standards/morals I will sell my 360 and never buy another Call of Duty.(I'd swear off Acti altogether, but Blizzard is too awesome to give up)

Can we get a confirm on this? I...don't want to believe. Hell I don't know who to be more pissed at if true.
Um... So Activision makes a product thats gets lots of people onto gold, and microsoft is the only one that should benefit, not only that, but in a price rise, its fine for microsoft, but if they do it to attract publishers to their services its bad >.>? Twitter doesnt get people on live.
 
This thread is so great.

You seriously think Microsoft needed a reason to want to raise the price of their service? "They want more money" isn't obvious enough?
 

C4Lukins

Junior Member
Lothars said:
I doubt we will actually ever get clarification regarding this but I wouldn't be surprised if MS is paying activision with Live fees even though Activision definitely doesn't deserve it.

It could be true, but no way it accounts for all ten dollars of that price increase. And if they are giving Activision a cut it is because they are getting something in return that is exclusive to the XBOX platform.
 
sflufan said:
In order for this conspiracy to work, exactly what kind of leverage would Lord Kotick and Company have over Microsoft?

Even just a 3 month delayed release of CODBLOPS in the favour of the PS3 would have put a massive dent in MS holiday lineup for this year I think.

Kulock said:
There's always an asshole. At this point, the 360, PS3 and Wii are all aged technology starting to show their limits, yet their lifespans are being extended via enhanced motion controls, supposedly for a span of a few years more. If that's true, there is a gap where an aggressive starter could get a decent footing, even in this downtrodden economy, and Activision is probably the one with the strongest positioning to pull it off, if they so decided. I didn't say it was going to happen or even likely, but that it was a potential threat they could leverage.

"No understanding whatsoever," seriously, you can just say "I strongly disagree with that" without being a dick about it?

Right.

Like I said.

You have no understanding of the business model third party publishers - especially modern day Activision - are working to.

For all of the same reasons that 'classic EA' of 5 years ago had literally no interest in getting into the hardware manufacturing business at the start of this gen.
 
TheSeks 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!

It's Blizzard or to better yet their parent company Vivendi who owns activision, kotick doesn't own anyone.
 
Activision need Microsoft more than the MS need CoD. Releasing Black Ops on PS3 first would damage the franchise more than it would harm Microsoft.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
les papillons sexuels said:
It's Blizzard or to better yet their parent company Vivendi who owns activision, kotick doesn't own anyone.
Blizzard isnt even important enough to report to Kotick. They report directly to the soap salesman Tippl who in turn reports to Kotick.
 

Wizpig

Member
Nuclear Muffin said:
So if my theory is sound, Activision is directly responsible for the XBL price hike and every single XBL subscriber is subsidising Activision, even if you have never bought a single one of their games.

So what are your thoughts on the matter?
Jesus jumped up CHRIST.
_Bro said:
dear thread,

READ THIS
This sounds better.
 

jorma

is now taking requests
Branduil said:
Free online if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
Cause your friends don't Steam
And if they don't Steam
Well they're no friends of mine

hats off for this one! :p
 
I know I'm bumping an old thread but noticed today at Target that there are 12 month live cards that are COD branded. Might be that the only live money they are getting are from the direct sales of those cards.

Would make a lot more sense than activision getting a piece of every single subscription.
 

exwallst

Member
My guesses
-ESPN had much more to do with the price hike than anything else. Disney knows that is about the most valuable television content around. They also know Microsoft is willing to pay for differentiation.
-Netflix, on the other hand, paid Microsoft for every new customer that signed up.
-Bobby probably talking about the exclusive maps deal with Microsoft as his token payment.
 
bigtroyjon said:
I know I'm bumping an old thread but noticed today at Target that there are 12 month live cards that are COD branded. Might be that the only live money they are getting are from the direct sales of those cards.
Game branded cards have been around for a while. I remotely think that there was one for a Single-Player game too.
 

Skilotonn

xbot xbot xbot xbot xbot
At least a handful of people like jedimike have some brains instead of falling in line like everyone else did.

Aside from his points, if this were true, why was the price hike mainly US & UK only? If you want a theory that actually has some weight behind it, it would be for the content & streaming services that XBL Gold has that ONLY those regions with those services like Netflix & Sky are available in.

The rest of the EU and the world that didn't get the price hike don't have those services - but then that might make too much sense for most when conspiracy theories are much more fun.

My region didn't get a price hike, plus I always pay close to half for Live anyways so don't even try to say that I'm defending anything, I just hate to see people run with things that have no concrete proof, getting angry over nothing.
 

expy

Banned
Nuclear Muffin said:
Speaking of which, I wonder if Activision are receiving a portion of Sony's Playstation Plus subscription fees? (maybe pressure from Activision to receive payment for driving traffic was part of the reason why it was launched in the first place? - just a thought! I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just an off the cuff thought!)
What? Seriously? :lol
It's totally different. PS3 CoD online players don't necessarily have PS+, but 360 CoD online players require Gold Live accounts.
 
Top Bottom