Sub fee for CoD

[carnifex27]

I hate to just ask a question and run away, but I'm a lurker at heart and would much rather witness a good discussion than be involved in one.  With the number of people that Call of Duty currently has, if the next iteration was created with the same level of quality as the last couple, could they get away with charging a sub fee?

Players are currently willing to buy a $40+ dollar game and pay $15 a month to keep playing with their friends, if CoD added an expanded lobby and community building tools would they be more successful?  With the number of players they have, if only 5% were willing to pay $4.99/mo. would they make more money or less?

[Nebu]

Seems they'd have to a) provide players a reason for a persistent existence and b) generate enough content to keep players engaged for several months. 

It's all about providing a carrot with a long enough stick that players will stick around. 

[carnifex27]

For persistent existence, players achieve particular accomplishments to gain in-game wealth which is then used to unlock access to different perks, gear and cosmetic upgrades.  The content is mostly created by the nature of PvP, but new map packs being released every 3-6 months certainly doesn't hurt.  The vast majority of "casual" gamers I know were playing MW2 on a regular basis, up to if not past the point that Black Ops was released, so it's game play is clearly engaging enough to keep folks coming back for more.

[Nebu]

There's engaging and then there's engaging enough to be worth $15 a month.  There are many free FPS games of a high quality.  To garner a subscription fee, you'd have to offer something perceived as "better" than the current free games.  I think this is the pitfall that Planetside ran into.  PS was a good game.  It just wasn't $15 a month better than the competition from a fun/gameplay standpoint for most people. 

[Rendakor]

Except that, according to the masses, COD is the best shooter out there. Given that, if they were to start charging a monthly fee, it's entirely possible that the competition would fall in line and do so also.

The real question is, would you still have to pay $10/month (or whatever it is now) for Xbox Live on top of the COD fee?

[carnifex27]

Just to clarify, I was saying $5/mo, not $15. If 95% of CoD players refused to pay that, I think they would still make more money than they currently do. Particularly if a few months after they released the next one the servers for the old one started dropping or experiencing lag for some reason. As for being "better", what FPS is currently considered to be of similar quality as MW2 or Black Ops? I know that sounded snarky and I apologize. I don't play FPS games for the most part and would honestly like to know what games have a similar number of addicts players right now.

[Rendakor]

Just to clarify, I was saying $5/mo, not $15. If 95% of CoD players refused to pay that, I think they would still make more money than they currently do. Particularly if a few months after they released the next one the servers for the old one started dropping or experiencing lag for some reason. As for being "better", what FPS is currently considered to be of similar quality as MW2 or Black Ops? I know that sounded snarky and I apologize. I don't play FPS games for the most part and would honestly like to know what games have a similar number of addicts players right now.

You're not going to find a lot of people who actually like COD here, since it's mostly a console game and F13ers are mostly PC gamers.

[Malakili]

I do enjoy CoD:BlackOPs multiplayer, and its the first CoD I've played in quite some time.  There is no way in hell I'd touch it with a monthly fee, hell I'll reinstall counter-strike, its just a bit of a prettied up version of that anyway.

[DLRiley]

WoT has it so you pay about $15 dollars for a crap ton of gold and double exp. I think a version of that would work for CoD. It STILL has to be a free game, but a optional "sub" is proven to be profitable. Riot, creators of League of Legends, charges you basically 10 dollars for a new champion and often release between 1-2 champs a month. Its a sub fee but not a sub fee and entirely optional except if you want the new champion NOW! The last fps/esportish game to flat out call their $15 a month a subscription was global agenda, you judge how well that worked out.

[Typhon]

I think monthly fee would kill it as well.

Given the lobby and account leveling system they have, I think micro-trans (character models, equal-but-different weapons, etc) and some sort of advertising are almost assured.

[Engels]

The better option would be for mini expansions, like BC2 has done with Vietnam. For 15 bucks, you get at least 4 new maps, whole new set of guns, altered albeit simplified game play and a palpably different experience. That will bring in the bucks. 5 bucks a month for no reason other than keep playing what you have been playing will maybe work for a bit, but the resentment buildup will show itself in mass exodus to the next FPS that promises the same with no monthly fee.

[HaemishM]

I think you'll have a harder row to hoe charging a sub fee for FPS games in the future than you already do, and frankly, there isn't any reason to. Most FPS these days aren't PC games - they are games like COD where most of the profit comes from the console sales. Both big consoles have large DLC markets, and making those work is the key to making more money from the product than before, at least for the 1-3 year life cycle of the product. With products like BattlefieldPlay4Free setting up the market for F2P with Microtrans options coming up, I think any sort of sub fee for FPS is going to be doomed to failure, even with a franchise that has a loyal following like CoD.

[Malakili]

I think you'll have a harder row to hoe charging a sub fee for FPS games in the future than you already do, and frankly, there isn't any reason to. Most FPS these days aren't PC games - they are games like COD where most of the profit comes from the console sales. Both big consoles have large DLC markets, and making those work is the key to making more money from the product than before, at least for the 1-3 year life cycle of the product. With products like BattlefieldPlay4Free setting up the market for F2P with Microtrans options coming up, I think any sort of sub fee for FPS is going to be doomed to failure, even with a franchise that has a loyal following like CoD.

I'll pay a monthly fee for Tribes Universe or Planetside 2/Next in a heartbeat

[Ratman_tf]

I think one big hurdle is- imagine having to pay a subscription for every single console game or PC game you have owned in order to play. That's a huge chunk of change, even if it's only 4.99 a month. And it would be a big hassle to manage all those subscriptions. I only keep one sub game open at a time, I have had 2 and sometimes 3, but not for very long. Usually I'm shutting down one account and activating another, and coasting on the remainder of subscriptions in those cases.

Paid services is one way to handle it. I recently resubbed to Anarchy Online, and found my characters were gone from my sub account. So I made a new char, and went ahead and bought a hoverbike and a stack of XP stims. Boy howdy. Being able to fly to missions and getting a 20% bonus to XP is a huge advantage. The beginning levels just flew by.

If game companies could roll subs into packages, that would be a neat solution. SOE tried that, but most of their games suck.  But imagine if you could pay 15 or 20 bucks a month to get access to a bundle of subscription games that you actually liked. Ideally, it would be a package included with your online account, in the case of consoles.

[Malakili]

Looking at it realistically, the vast majority of my gaming goes into one or two games anyway.  Of the games I play, I would only actually miss starcraft 2 if everything started pay per month charges.  The other game I've been playing is already an mmo.  Realistically, while id be against it, it would not have a huge affect on how I play.  Granted I am not a console gamer.

[LK]

I think one of the major reasons they want subscriptions is to deter piracy, since you can't pirate a subscription (only steal it from someone else). Every copy registered and paid for -- a wonderful thing for a game publisher. Something I bet every movie and music publisher would salivate over the possibility of that level of control over their product. But movie and music publishers... they won't ever be able to create a "service" that warrants a subscription. They create content but the model of delivery and the amount of content isn't service-levels of content. Netflix, iTunes and other private businesses beat them to the punch anyway.

The service that you provide with that subscription is not something the game industry is capable of doing. Too many "services" and there won't be enough customers to sustain. Game companies aren't necessarily service companies. The best analogy I can make is that they are more movie studios putting out a product than AT&T giving you access to something you want. A game company would need to change fundamentally (and take a huge risk in the process) to be able to provide the type of service that would see mad profits. Realistic expectations are CRITICAL to success, but game companies want that big launch and that big debut because it's a product, that's where most of the money is made, etc. But a service starts small and builds itself up.

They look at Blizzard and they want to replicate it in a space where nothing like Blizzard exists. But Call of Duty, as it is, and a subscription service aren't compatible without strong, fundamental changes to the design that I envision the current audience would reject unless handled carefully.

[tazelbain]

Can't pirate Guild Wars or DDO either.

[Demonix]

wouldn't doing that cannibalize thier current model, as mentioned above?  They want to sell sequels/updates;  if they tried to move into a subscription model, it would increase their overhead (infrastructure/customer support, servers) and they would need to provide compelling content...or at least persistent as in the case of planetside and WWIIonline.

I dont think it would be worth it, from a business standpoint.  I couldn't see them doing it with current CoD mechanics, they would have to develop a new system/world at which point it would no longer be CoD.

I'm not saying thats a bad thing, however. :)