Kotick: Audience "Clamoring" for Subscription CoD [Jun 20, 2010, 11:45 am ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
Activision CEO Bobby Kotick answers "I would have Call of Duty be an online subscription service tomorrow," when asked by Wall Street Journal Online what he would do if he could instantly make one change in his company by snapping his fingers. He goes on to explain: "When you think about what the audience's interests are and how you could really satisfy bigger audiences with more inspired, creative opportunities, I would love to see us have an online Call of Duty world. I think our players would just have so much of a more compelling experience." He answers "hopefully" to their follow-up question of whether this is coming, and goes on to explain that their customers have been "clamoring" for the opportunity to pay a monthly fee for multiplayer support, as demonstrated by how much they play for free: "I think our audiences are clamoring for it. If you look at what they're playing on Xbox Live today, we've had 1.7 billion hours of multiplayer play on Live. I think we could do a lot more to really satisfy the interests of the customers. I think we could create so many things, and make the game even more fun to play. We haven't really had a chance to do that yet, so that would be my snap of the fingers." Thanks Joao via CVG via VG247 via NeoGAF.
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Jul 20, 2010, 18:42.
This comment was deleted on Jul 20, 2010, 18:42.
Heh.
^D^
^D^
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
My presumption
Ah, now it makes sense.
Why give credit and pay licensing fees when none is due?
Flip over the CoD5 /6 box (back panel), and read the fine print:
"This product contains software technology licensed from id software ("id technology"). id Technology (c) 1999-2008 id software, inc."
This was off the CoD:WaW box I'm looking at as I type this.
My presumption is that the "IW engine" is the derivative enhancements they made to idTech (much in the same way that Valve's original Half-Life did same to the Quake 1 engine).
^D^
Flip over the CoD5 /6 box (back panel), and read the fine print:
"This product contains software technology licensed from id software ("id technology"). id Technology (c) 1999-2008 id software, inc."
This was off the CoD:WaW box I'm looking at as I type this.
My presumption is that the "IW engine" is the derivative enhancements they made to idTech (much in the same way that Valve's original Half-Life did same to the Quake 1 engine).
^D^
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
^Drag0n^ wrote on Jun 23, 2010, 18:27:
Look again. In the credits and on the box disclaimer.
Even the editor we got for MW1.
^D^
they are right dragon. IW stopped using idtech after COD. i just remembered reading about it on the pcgamer magazine that had COD2 on its cover a long time ago (sept 05). one of the big selling points of the game was the new graphics engine they were using. it was a concern for fans of the game but the graphics turned out better than expected. they kept the console commands similar to the quake engine though.
http://www.tweakguides.com/COD2_8.html
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/reviews/7659/Call-of-Duty-2-Review
Look again. In the credits and on the box disclaimer.
Links, please!
Look again. In the credits and on the box disclaimer.
Even the editor we got for MW1.
^D^
Even the editor we got for MW1.
^D^
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
^Drag0n^ wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 20:13:id tech? The last game the CoD series used id tech ... was the first game. Since CoD2 IW and Treyarch are using their own engines. And the IW engine was primarily based on id tech 3, not 4.
They've modified the hell out of it, but yes, it's idTech 4 (Doom3 engine).
They've modified the hell out of it, but yes, it's idTech 4 (Doom3 engine).
^D^
^D^
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
^Drag0n^ wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 14:51:
I could see that MMO-CoD would involve a larger battlefield, and would probably neccessetate a shift away from idTech4, which remains as the core of the current titles.
didnt know modern warfare was using idtech4. that explains the wet rubber look of the skins.
zirik wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 04:49:
that would be a game that might appeal to MMO fans. i wonder how they will tie it in with the single player campaign. do they plan on getting rid of the single player campaign permanently? that would save them development time and money. just provide a good sandbox experience for the players. hey its ARMA2!
I'm thinking that the game as we know it now would be a separate product (i.e. MW2-like games would still be made). I could see that MMO-CoD would involve a larger battlefield, and would probably neccessetate a shift away from idTech4, which remains as the core of the current titles.
From what I've read, Sledgehammer Games was originally tasked with doing just that (MMOCoD), but that may have shifted as a result of the fallout from the circus surrounding IW.
^D^
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
Yeah, I did the original CoD and United Offensive but nothing after that. Played the hell out of it for about a year or so. Probably averaged 20+ hours a week for that year. I was tempted to try CoD2 but never got around to it -- I was deep into WoW by the time CoD2 came out. 
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
^Drag0n^ wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 01:41:
I guess what I'm driving at is they could add significant statistical depth and something that's a bit more than a simple rock-paper-scissors approach to the various classes they have now.
that would be a game that might appeal to MMO fans. i wonder how they will tie it in with the single player campaign. do they plan on getting rid of the single player campaign permanently? that would save them development time and money. just provide a good sandbox experience for the players. hey its ARMA2!
Beamer--
Thanks for the list.
My gut is telling me that the technical issues of setting up a cross-platform console MMO are steep, which is probably why we only see them on a given platform.
I'd also assume that MS wouldn't exactly make it easy to monetize a subscription service without getting a significant cut, what with the fact that the consoles need to go through XBL to get online.
The latter of those reasons leads me to believe that the PC is actually the only viable MMO vehicle out there right now. Just too many layers of BS (and too many hands out for a share) in the console world.
^D^
(edited to fix typos).
This comment was edited on Jun 22, 2010, 15:01.
Thanks for the list.
My gut is telling me that the technical issues of setting up a cross-platform console MMO are steep, which is probably why we only see them on a given platform.
I'd also assume that MS wouldn't exactly make it easy to monetize a subscription service without getting a significant cut, what with the fact that the consoles need to go through XBL to get online.
The latter of those reasons leads me to believe that the PC is actually the only viable MMO vehicle out there right now. Just too many layers of BS (and too many hands out for a share) in the console world.
^D^
(edited to fix typos).
This comment was edited on Jun 22, 2010, 15:01.
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
zirik wrote on Jun 22, 2010, 00:30:^Drag0n^ wrote on Jun 21, 2010, 17:25:
I was thinking that they could expand the skills and perks and make it such that each character could be developed in statistics, dress, and weapons. i.e. maybe you get ninja-like assassin skills, but you can't add armour, so it forces you to rely on wit and stealth. For gunnery class, you could be a war machine, but move sounding like a raccoon through a field of garbage cans.
that sounds a lot like what they already have in modern warfare 2 or bad company 2. i.e. your loadout will determine how fast your character will run and for how far, etc. your achievements will allow you to unlock certain skills like fast reload, etc. its free already so why pay for it? the more i think i about it the more it seems they want another battlefield heroes type of game complete with micro transactions for every aspect of the game.
Sort of. The perks right now allow you to have a fast ninja like gunner with an M60. Kinda ridiculous. Also, CoD does not let you currently customise the appearance, dress, and ethnicity of your character.
I guess what I'm driving at is they could add significant statistical depth and something that's a bit more than a simple rock-paper-scissors approach to the various classes they have now.
^D^
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
^Drag0n^ wrote on Jun 21, 2010, 17:25:
I was thinking that they could expand the skills and perks and make it such that each character could be developed in statistics, dress, and weapons. i.e. maybe you get ninja-like assassin skills, but you can't add armour, so it forces you to rely on wit and stealth. For gunnery class, you could be a war machine, but move sounding like a raccoon through a field of garbage cans.
that sounds a lot like what they already have in modern warfare 2 or bad company 2. i.e. your loadout will determine how fast your character will run and for how far, etc. your achievements will allow you to unlock certain skills like fast reload, etc. its free already so why pay for it? the more i think i about it the more it seems they want another battlefield heroes type of game complete with micro transactions for every aspect of the game.
What if you only played the first CoD and that's it?
Then you saw the best the series has to offer anyway. Assuming you got United Offensive as well.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
- Mahatma Gandhi
What if you only played the first CoD and that's it? 
And yet I cannot recall a single MMOxxx title on a console yet.
Phantasy Star Online and Final Fantasy spring to mind, but yeah, in general, they're pretty rare.
Actual appearances are low, but announcements aren't quite as much:
Age of Conan
Champions Online
Marvel Universe (cancelled, yet another Marvel one was announed)
APB
Stargate
Crimecraft (officially cancelled)
Dust
Secret World
I'm doubtful that we'll see many or any of these emerge. But yeah, right now it's Phantasy Star and that one Final Fantasy. MMOs on consoles haven't been proven, so no one is sticking their neck out. They focus on the PC first, then struggles there kill the 360 plans. On top of that Don Mattick wasn't a huge MMO fan and wasn't nuturing them as much as other genres.
The champion of the console MMO right now is Bill Roper.
So we'll see if it ever really works out. I don't consider it a real loss.
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
nin wrote on Jun 21, 2010, 16:53:And yet I cannot recall a single MMOxxx title on a console yet.
Phantasy Star Online and Final Fantasy spring to mind, but yeah, in general, they're pretty rare.
Hi nin--
Were those 360 as well with persistent stats/characters? Just asking as I never personally played them. I wasn't even aware that the FF title was Massively Multiplayer (?).
zirik--
I was thinking that they could expand the skills and perks and make it such that each character could be developed in statistics, dress, and weapons. i.e. maybe you get ninja-like assassin skills, but you can't add armour, so it forces you to rely on wit and stealth. For gunnery class, you could be a war machine, but move sounding like a raccoon through a field of garbage cans.
There's a lot you could do to balance play, and in a persistent world, you'd have the opportunity to tweak gameplay on a daily basis.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more interesting actually *making* something like this becomes. My hopes would be that it would have a separate life from vanilla FPS SP/MP CoD.
^D^
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
Copyright © 1996-2021 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2021 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 4 March 2021, 23:13.